Russert was a well respected journalist. Did the media cover Cronkite's death any less?

Have a bit of perspective.

They are myopic about their role as players, till they die.

Also: news reports mentioned he made $5 million a year.

Wow.

They should once in a while tell us that. All of them, Brokaw, Williamson, Couric, Scarborough who ever, whomever, whatever.

They sit there and discuss who's elitist and who's not and who's tax plan helps what sector. Isn't knowing if they get almost $100K a week relevant?

Perhaps he and ilk on MSNBC sneered at white working class voters so much and couldn't ever come up with any possible fair or proper reason why they didn't go for Obama as much due to ......

class bias?

Just sayin' it's relevant ..... we sure like to know how rich everyone else is when considering their role as players......

I'm almost 41 and I have to admit that I've never seen or heard Russert on TV, ever.

Old retired broadcaster dies many years after he retires = not so big a deal.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.

Now, I can’t say with certainty that there will be no battle for Baghdad. We have to be prepared for that possibility. But, again, I don’t want to convey to the American people the idea that this is a cost-free operation. Nobody can say that. I do think there’s no doubt about the outcome. There’s no question about who is going to prevail if there is military action. And there’s no question but what it is going to be cheaper and less costly to do it now than it will be to wait a year or two years or three years until he’s developed even more deadly weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons. And the consequences then of having to deal with him would be far more costly than will be the circumstances today. Delay does not help.

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

MR. RUSSERT: We have had 50,000 troops in Kosovo for several years, a country of just five million people. This is a country of 23 million people. It will take a lot in order to secure it.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, but we’ve significantly drawn down our forces in Kosovo and in the Balkans. There’s no question but what we’ll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein’s regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again. And we are well-equipped to do that. We have got a lot of effort that’s gone into that.

But the—again, I come back to this proposition—Is it cost-free? Absolutely not. But the cost is far less than it will be if we get hit, for example, with a weapon that Saddam Hussein might provide to al-Qaeda, the cost to the United States of what happened on 9/11 with billions and billions of dollars and 3,000 lives. And the cost will be much greater in a future attack if the terrorists have access to the kinds of capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed.

Yes, and wasn't it heroic when Russert struck a blow for the American People by calling out Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and every other face-biting, shameless, incompetent, psychopathic Bushbot who used his program to give their insane lies and propaganda a patina of credibility?

Oh right--that never happened.

People can get as worked up as they like about Russert's supposed failure to attack people whose absurdity and incompetence he has just exposed. I tend to think that's our responsibility after the broadcast. Russert needed to earn and secure Cheney's trust so that he could keep booking him (there's a pretty stunning interview the following September). Being aggro wouldn't have been nearly so effective.

I don't think Russert was perfect, by any means. But your criticism misses the point of programs like Meet the Press.

I fail to see what use all this access and trust is to anybody. He got the story wrong.

Russert only got the story wrong insofar as he failed to ask any questions about the Sunni/Shia faultlines. Believe me, print reporters were missing that too.

But if people believed Cheney's pathetic reasoning (::Kosovo? please!), that's not Russert's fault.

You guys want somebody to tell the truth from on high? You're asking for an opinion columnist, not a host of a Sunday morning talk show. I think it's great that there's a place for gov't officials to spout their talking points in a semi-hostile environment. It helps people make decisions in a more rational manner than they otherwise would have the opportunity to do.

Not as much as I miss my dogs who died this year or my partner who died eight years ago, but I will miss him.

Coverage overdone? Yeah. But if *I* ran a news organization, you'd be damn tired of my tributes to my wonderful dogs...

annie @ 22,

That's precisely why our establishment media is in an ethical and financial tailspin from which it likely won't recover. It's the central reason why people who care about news are abandoning the establishment media by the truckload.

Being objective does not mean giving equal time to liars and not questioning their crazy lies. Isn't the purpose of journalism to uncover the truth and inform the public? Maybe that's not what they're teaching in j-school these days, but stating facts and confronting people with reality does not make real journalism--real life--an opinion.

As for Russert, I can understand their desire to throw him a good ol' Irish wake, but they should have done it off camera. That way, at least they'd could have gotten properly drunk.

WNBC in New York devoted their entire entire broadcast yesterday to Russert. I changed channels after 15 mins. NBC Nightly News devoted their whole show to Tim Russert. Its all overkill if you ask me.

Was Russert the best journalist of all time? No. Was he the worst? No. I only hope whoever replaces him the the political firmament is as prepared as he was, because some of these on air people are dumb as a doorknob.

But back to Original Andrew. I overstated my case. You want an advocacy journalist, which is totally fine. The Stranger practices advocacy journalism. But if you want to be angry at the reporting that preceded the Iraq war, look at Judith Miller. The host of an interview-based program doesn't play the same role as a print reporter, and it's pointless to ask him to.

Making Dick Cheney repeat his stupid-sounding talking points and confronting him with opposing expert opinions is useful, Tim Russert was good at it, and I'm sorry he's gone.

Russert died in the studio recording a show for the network. People who considered him a friend had to take to the airwaves shortly after and try to go on with the day. From that perspective, I'd be more furious if Keith Olbermann had tried to push through like nothing had happened.

Their tragedy was the most real thing of the day, for them. It was also nationally newsworthy. The suggestion that they should ignore the death of Tim Russert to talk about The Other Big Things (what? the usual campaign crap?) is simply naive.

"Russert's show took a hit early in the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby.

"As the Bush administration assessed how to respond to criticism of how the U.S. went to war in Iraq, Cheney's then-chief press aide, Cathie Martin, listed their best option as putting Cheney on Meet the Press.

"Martin wrote in a memo that the show "is our best format" because "we control the message a little bit more."

The Iraq war was the biggest WTF moment I can think of. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and was zero threat to us. Their presentation to the UN was a joke. These journalists could have done better than questions like, Shouldn’t we use more troops? and Are the American people really ready for this?
Russert and the others have been a big reason why this country is going down the tubes.

annie think maybe the fact that you don't watch the shows but read the NYT would make you think that Judith Miller is more important and at fault - btw she was also put on cable via phone from her imbedded position.

Yeah, linking to other bloggers -- what other reputable blogger does *that*? BESIDES ALL OF THEM. And blogging may be done by a lot of journalists, but not all bloggers are journalists, and I don't think I've ever heard Dan describe himself as a journalist. Take your buyout from the Times/PI, ss, and move into your retirement home already.

sad passing, but not all that big of a story---VERY self-serving all the way around and obama says he is "grief-stricken"----really? how weird.

I'll leave the last word to Harry Shearer on Le Show for his "News Outside the Bubble" segment.

Sure he's right about this in principle, but it's not like he doesn't practically worship a handful of media figures, like Sullivan for example.