TV Journalism Will Miss Russert

Charlie Cook, a political analyst for whom I have a great deal of respect, had this to say about Tim Russert in the National Journal:

"Tim Russert took television's coverage of politics and government to a level comparable to the very best in print journalism," Cook writes. "Unfortunately, that is a rare achievement."

Maybe it is a rare achievement -- these days.

But when I was growing up, it was different.

Maybe we didn't have all the options that people have today, but we had newsmen on television who were serious about bringing the news into people's living rooms -- no agenda, just the facts.

People like Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Frank McGee, Eric Sevareid, Howard K. Smith and countless others carried on a proud tradition that had its roots in the days of Edward R. Murrow (pictured above).

Journalists like that didn't believe that ratings defined their value to their fellow citizens. Neither did Russert.

Russert knew he was responsible for a sacred trust -- the public's faith that he would deliver the information that was needed to make important decisions.

"Too often, television's imprint on journalism, particularly on cable, is to political journalism what comic books are to literature," writes Cook. "Superficial and overly simplistic, hyperbolic and occasionally demagogic, too often even the most basic standards of reporting and commentary are abandoned without a second thought.

"But any show that Tim Russert was on was guaranteed to be of a standard that could be held up unapologetically to the best in print journalism."

As Bernard Goldberg writes in the Wall Street Journal, Russert had a "willingness to listen to -- and take seriously -- criticism about his own profession."

Cook admits, "I cannot claim that we were close friends, but we were friends and, more importantly, he was one of the ablest professionals I have ever worked with and a terrific person."

What higher praise can a journalist receive than that?

Another Voice Says 'No Change' in Electoral Map

Joe Klein has penned a nicely written tribute to his friend and professional colleague, NBC's Tim Russert, in Newsweek.

Russert died yesterday at the age of 58, and there were eulogies to him on every news channel out there last night. It's hard to imagine a broadcast journalist, active or retired, who wasn't asked to weigh in somewhere last night.

I think one of the nicest, most complete memorials to Russert's career appeared in his hometown newspaper, the Buffalo News.

There are other tributes to Russert this morning, of course.

The New York Daily News devoted an editorial to his memory today.

And Tom Shales writes, in the Washington Post, "[H]e couldn't have died. It seems impossible. Tim Russert can't be gone because he was having too good a time."

Russert, a consummate political junkie, was "loving this election" between Barack Obama and John McCain, Klein writes, "as much as any we'd covered" in several decades in the business. "I just can't believe he won't be around to find out how it ends."

Most observers, of course, simply assume they will be around to see how the final chapter is written.

Some people (myself included) are making some guesses as to what the final outcome will be, based on voting patterns from past elections. Stuart Rothenberg confirmed my opinion in his Rothenberg Political Report earlier this week.

Neither of us can see a profound shift coming in the United States' electoral breakdown -- on the presidential level.

Today, another voice is telling us that the electoral map is not going to be radically different this fall.

In National Journal, John Mercurio writes, "[A]fter months of predictions that a John McCain vs. Barack Obama race could produce a dramatically reconfigured electoral map, will we once again watch a classic red-blue divide take shape, essentially the same map we've seen in the past two presidential elections?

"If this week's debate over the economy and taxes offers any clues, the answer is yes."

Mercurio doesn't expect to see a "'red' California or 'blue' Virginia -- not even a 'purple' Mississippi" when the votes are being counted in November.

Mercurio anticipates "[j]ust another America with blue coastlines, a big swath of red in the Mountain West and Deep South and a fierce battle in key Northeastern and Midwestern states."

Pundits have been pushing the point for quite awhile that Obama and McCain are different from their parties' nominees in recent elections -- which means new choices and new directions for many states.

But the choices aren't looking so revolutionary now. It's taken on a "same song, second (or third or fourth or fifth) verse" kind of quality.

"While he initially opposed them as a giveaway to the rich, McCain now embraces his pivot (on tax cuts) and paints Obama as the tax-and-spend liberal that voters have rejected in seven of the past 10 presidential elections," says Mercurio.

For good measure, Mercurio observes, McCain accused Obama of "'running for Jimmy Carter's second' term" with his economic proposals.

Poor Jimmy Carter seems to be everybody's whipping boy, even though I don't believe he deserves it.

(Harry Truman once said that the Great Depression was not created by Herbert Hoover, it was created for him. I feel much the same way about the economic problems that afflicted the Carter administration.)

As for Obama, Mercurio writes, "There are ... plenty of unpopular presidents to go around these days. Speaking in St. Louis ... Obama threw his albatross of choice around his opponent's neck. 'I've said John McCain is running to serve out a third Bush term, but when it comes to taxes, that's not being fair to George Bush,' he said. 'Senator McCain wants to add $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans.'"

If the candidates are reverting to form, why should we think the voters won't do likewise?

Mercurio seems to agree.

"[C]onsidering the stark choices offered by the two candidates on high-priority issues such as the economy, Iraq, health care and abortion rights," says Mercurio, "it's hard to see how we're bracing for a whole new world, or even a new map."

Charlie Cook wrote earlier this week in National Journal that, although both sides talk about campaigning in all 50 states, as if they actually had a chance of winning each state, "[d]on't bet on it."

And Cook (eerily) referred to Russert in his column (at the time the column was written, Russert's death was still a few days away). "Instead of 'Florida, Florida, Florida' or 'Ohio, Ohio, Ohio,' as NBC's Tim Russert said in 2000 and 2004, respectively, he could be saying 'Colorado, Colorado, Colorado.'"

Cook's most recent Electoral College assessment suggested that McCain could depend on 27 states worth 260 electoral votes, Obama could count on 18 states and D.C. worth 242 electoral votes, and the race would be decided by the outcomes in five states (Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada) worth 36 electoral votes.

That analysis was published in April. Things may have changed since then.

Friday the 13th, Part 2

Well, I guess I put my foot in my mouth (figuratively speaking) with my post about Friday the 13th this morning.

NBC's Tim Russert, host of "Meet the Press," died today.

The New York Times is reporting that Russert "had coronary artery disease, but no symptoms. He had done everything he was supposed to do to manage the disease, although his weight was a problem. [Russert's doctor] said that such attacks can’t be anticipated, but a defibrillator can make a difference."

Do I think Friday the 13th had anything to do with Russert's death? No. And, apparently, neither does his doctor.

"These incidents occur without warning, the doctor said, and there’s no way to anticipate them," the New York Times reports. "He could have had a stress test today and it might have been normal. But there was a rupture of cholesterol plaque in the wall of the coronary artery, which results in a heart attack, or what he called a fatal ventricular arrhythmia."

If you watch "Meet the Press," as I have done from time to time, it's going to be hard to watch it with Russert no longer there. He had his faults, but he was clearly dedicated to his work.

As he was to his family. In fact, he had just returned from a family trip to Italy -- which will now be a bittersweet memory for his widow and son.

Russert asked well-informed and insightful questions on political subjects. We shall miss his involvement in the fall.