Bill Moyers is a great journalist

Amy Goodman is a great journalist.

Greg Palast is a great journalist and a brave patriot as well.

Phil Donahue spoke out against the war and lost his job (on Russert's network) for his anti-war views.

In the 2 weeks that lead up to the war, 393 interviews with 'experts' were aired on our news networks. TWO were with 'experts' who opposed the war.

Our media dropped the ball big time and promoted this war instead of asking the tough questions which may have caused the American people to demand accountability from our elected officials.

5 years later 4100 of our troops are dead. Their deaths are tragic and could have been prevented.

Bill Moyers spoke out, Amy Goodman spoke out. Greg Palast spoke out. Phil Donahue spoke out.

Tim Russert carried water for the Bush administration.

I have sympathy for Russert's family. His death is a tragedy for them. But so are the deaths of 4100 soldiers.

Please keep this in mind if you join in on the canonization of Russert.

You may not like their slant, but they are good journalists nonetheless.

The bulk of our 'media', with Russert at the lead, dropped the ball big time in the lead up to the war. That's not good journalism.

The NYT was the worst. See Moyers' "Buying the War."

Oh, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and many other supposedly liberal icons ... also dropped the ball.

And I don't think "liberal" means what you think it means. Real liberals were shouting their heads off. Establishment Democrats, not so much.

:)

YouTube video: Bill Moyers Journal | Buying the War | End of Objectivity (30sec)

He's included a few times in the program, but this clip paired with Walter Pincus' comments on what happened to objective journalism was most memorable to me.

and Russert being unapologetic. Right around there, though. :)

... where Russert confided that... paraphrasing... he sure wished he could have known more about the conflicting opinions on the WMD case for going into Iraq... but that his phone just wasn't ringing.

edit: Ah, this passage... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3450703&mesg_id=3450799

or I'd be homeless by now.

... that's being put forward the last few days.

It was no accident.
It was willful participation.

Russert was a refreshing exception to the flock of talking hacks that parade about on the teevee. He was tough but fair...and objective.

A good journalist tells the truth. Russert allowed his show to become a platform for those elected officials who lied to us about Iraq and Sadaaam.

This isn't about liberal advocacy. (But since this is supposedly a "liberal" website, your response is even more shocking.)

It's about war and deaths that could have been prevented if our "media" had done its job.

was a RNC lapdog.

You have to be watching a different program that I have been watching for many years.

I'm not saying that you even have to oppose neoconservatives philosophy or the Iraq War to be a good journalist. Even though I fundamentally disagree with their foreign policy views I think that there can be good journalists who agree with it.

But the Bush Administration FLAT OUT LIED to us about the reasons for going to war, and Russert's failure to scrutinize them on it was his failure as a journalist. He didn't ask the tough questions about connections about Al Qaeda's connections to Saddam, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and their willingness to actually build a true international coalition. Although they were few and far between, there were conservatives who called them out on this bullshit.

Journalists can have an ideology that you disagree with but they fail when they have an allegiance to a party or a politician. If you want to be loyal to a party then go into politics, don't go into journalism.

really.

just one.

You can't put your party first and be a good journalist. Being a good journalist means that even if you are a conservative and think the Iraq War is a splendid idea, you have to heavily scrutinize the Bush Administration about why they are making specious claims about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, sketchy evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction, and their lack of willingness to allow the inspectors to do their job.

Personally I know for a fact that I'm not cut out to be a good journalist. I know full well that the Democratic Party is often completely full of shit. I'm just not willing to call them on it because I fundamentally believe that this country is better off with Democrats in power than Republicans in power.

He was a toady for the bushco regime during these last few years of his life and will be remembered by me as such

as an enabler of this corrupt administration. Just heard a startling statistic on C-Span that "70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11" -- that's where our corporate propagandists (some like to refer to them as "journalists") led our nation and still leading it today toward a never-ending war. IMHO

are unthinking sheep who take what they're told and never consider reality or truth.

How come people like us knew that Iraq was not involved in 9/11? Because we read and we evaluate and we think. The percentage of "journalists" who put forth that nonsense is, I believe, much higher than 70%, and, if you read Greg Mitchell's book, "So Wrong For So Long," you'll end up, as I did, shaking your head and asking, "Why?"

It's the job of Russert and any other "true journalists" to research, analyze and REPORT the real story.

Russert had a mighty pulpit to deliver the truth, IF HE HAD WISHED TO.

He chose not to do it.

:hi:

"So Wrong For So Long," by Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher.

You have to read it. He excoriates his fellow "journalists" over this precise matter.

well said

with a "gotcha" smirk on his face. How that's great journalism is beyond me. I always assumed that he loved the Bushies; as the ringleader of the MSNBC (GE) circus, he must have gotten very wealthy during their misrule. To me, he always looked like a "journalist" who had sold out. All this adulation on DU is very strange, indeed. Telling the truth about someone who has died is not "dancing on their grave." It is simply telling the truth.

There are many GOOD, objective journalists out there. :hi:

Some asswipe DUer on another thread pilloried me for saying something less than 100% supportive about Russert. Yes, it is sad for his family, but as you said, there have been alot of sad events lately.

Life happens.

I do feel for his family but am completely over this sainthhood crap. He was no saint.

Here in Canada I'm watching this unbelievable non-stop coverage and have heard at least 3 people say he is not only being mourned in America, but around the world. This is really getting crazy. His death was announced with respect yesterday on our TV networks newscasts, but we are not in mourning or having hours of coverage. I'm sure it is the same in other countries around the world. Is NOBODY at the networks (not only NBC) aware of how self-indulgent this appears?
I'm sorry for his death and for the suffering of his family, as I would be for anyone's death, but enough is enough.

Their coverage was even worse.

I guess I must have been out of the loop when he was alive. I wasn't aware that he was the be-all and end-all of television journalists.

What I'm hoping is that Tim Russert's brand of so-called journalism will fade now. Now that the putative giant is gone.

Also Amy Goodman. We are so lucky to have her voice.

Thanks for the post, P2BL!

:hi:

this is an example of the problems with media. Tim's ashes have become part of the recycled compost of media feeding. He has become the latest Scott Peterson story or Wedding on Today story or little girl in a well story. Anything to drum up headlines and drama for the "news".

There are hundreds of real stories out there, lives being lost, families being ripped up in economic despair, but we get canned schmaltz. If he hadn't been one of those who perpetuated this kind of thing, I could feel sorry that his life has been reduced to this, but he did the same thing over and over. They didn't drop the ball. The hid the ball and held up shiny tin foil instead.

I totally agree with your take on this.

I of course do not wish anything nasty or mean towards the family who have lost a dear person but I am not mourning the loss of Russert.

When Johnny Carson died, I cried. I really loved that mans style and humor.

When Warren Zevon died, I cried, I loved his music and I miss him.

I can't join in on making Russert a saint. He should have called the Republicans on their willing murder of over a million Iraqis and over 4,000 Americans. He should have asked about the PTSD which is causing a suicide rate of massive proportions. He should have asked that asshole Cheney a few TOUGH questions about his participation in these murders. He did not. He played a game of softball with that criminal.

That would be great journalism.

:hug:

Now is the time to let family, friends, and co-workers grieve. Russert isn't the only news person who carried water for the Bush administration. He probably carried less water than the majority of them.

before it gets out of hand.

he is a true gentlemen in every sense of the word, a great interviewer and he also appreciates the people that work for him.

but agree about Bill Moyers and Phil Donohue.

And Amy nearly got herself killed covering East Timor. She was captured and her partner was shot.

add Christianne Amanpour to that also.

What the hell *is* a journalist? Is there a community definition we all adhere to? Is it like art-- we just ahppen to know good journalism when we read/see it? Do we apply that standard to all journalists-- the one's on the left as well as on the right? Can a "good" journalist have have a profit-sharing plan in his company? Or own shares of his company?