Why the Russert Coverage Matters

It had to come to this.
Journalists who had to find "the other side" questioning if the coverage on Russert's death has been too much.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/06/lessons-of-the.html

Here's why the Russert coverage has been elevated to such high levels, at least in my opinion, and I'm usually not a fan of broadcast media coverage. Russert's elevation is based on a careful combination of unique skills, unique position, unique enthusiasm, and a unique human being.

I would think that a true journalist, of all disciplines, would be able to consider the very special circumstances that surround this man, his life, his unexpected death and the legacy he leaves.
Oh, wait. Did I just expect a journalist to think? Oh, that's where my expectations were too high.
See, with Russert, we could have expectations. And that, my friends, was the difference.

I know this is difficult for some whiny journalists to fathom, but Russert wasn't fake. There wasn't a fake bone in that man's body. He exuded genuineness, and unfortunately, that is a rare thing in today's world of broadcast journalism. And that's why we needed him, especially the American people needed him.

1. It's an Election Year, and not just any election year. This is one of the most pivotal election years, dare I say, in the history of the United States. The Bush-Clinton era is OVER. No matter what happens in November, there is a new day dawning in the American presidency and in the history of the United States. Russert, for those of you who don't know your media history, has been one of the lead minds in covering elections, election debates, etc., and he did it on simple principles. Hold politicians accountable and keep it simple.
His boards (legal pads and dry erase boards) from the 2000 elections are in the Newseum in Washington, for a reason. Among the political world that I haunt, many people have commented that a politician knew that an appearance on Russert's show was a make-or-break matter.

2. Russert (lo and behold) WASN'T trained as a journalist. Why does this matter? He didn't think as a journalist and that's what made him stand out. He thought critically, analyzed thoughtfully. Teaching some of the older broadcast journalists to do that would be like teaching my 90-year-old grandmother the Internet. She has no use for it and she hasn't needed it thus far in her life. Why bother? Russert was the heavy hand in the broadcast world, the man who got it done. It's sort of like the head being cut off the body.
And Russert wasn't LAZY. So many of today's broadcast journalists are lazy. Who's going to take over for Russert? Olbermann doesn't want the job. It's not that we don't like Brokaw, but he didn't work to the same standard that Russert did. Brian Williams may be a suitable contender. Chris Matthews? Perhaps. Maybe Andrea Mitchell. Could be.
But at the end of the day, Russert had cajones and the respect of state and religious leaders that is unmatched. Why? Because they knew when they walked into an interview with Russert, they were going to be grilled, but they would also be treated with dignity and respect. And Russert went after the real answers because he listened to the concerns of average people.

Can you imagine Larry King in that post? "Um, Senator Obama, how did it feel to have a middle name like Hussein? I mean, did you actually KNOW Saddam?"

3. Russert raised the standard. Trust me, NBC news is PANICKING. They don't know who is going to replace him, and whoever does replace him will not have the viewer loyalty that Russert had. NBC is in trouble. They know it, especially in an Election Year.

4. This is a man who died in his prime and died suddenly with no warning. Although it was well known that he had heart disease, he had passed his stress test just a few months ago with flying colors. He was enjoying life. He just helped his son celebrate graduation from Boston College. He just got back from a family vacation in Italy.
The world had warning about Peter Jennings. The world is watching Brokaw age before them. It's not that we won't have the same reaction when Brokaw dies, but we know it's going to happen. No one knew it with Russert, and that makes all the difference, and you would have to be less than human and quite whiny not to recognize what sets this man's death apart.

5. People rooted for Russert and we all saw the light in his eyes. You couldn't help it. He pulled himself up on hard work and pure determination, passion and enthusiasm, and we met his family in the process. He was the American dream, and therefore, so much more than a broadcast journalist. For myself, I achieved upward mobility and I know what it's like to look at yourself and think, "Wow, I did this." Some days, I still can't even believe that I own a house or that I got to graduate school. For me, the little girl inside always is baffled. And everyone saw the little boy in Russert, that "Wow" component and that light in his eyes. Russert elevated himself on a level that was visible to millions; he showed us his heart and his warmth and his pure, unabashed love for politics, people and life. And that is what makes the Russert death worth covering.

He was one of us, a boy from Buffalo who made good and wanted the best for everyone. Do you feel that from any other broadcast journalist? Resoundingly, no.
That's why the coverage of Russert is what it is.