What do Jack Shafer and Fox News have in common?

Listen to me on WBAL Radio this morning, discussing the backlash to the coverage of Tim Russert's death.

Tim Russert's passing was unwanted and unfortunate, but in at least one respect its timing was impeccable. Russert had his fatal heart attack on a Friday, at the end of a slow political news week, on the second least-watched day of television and the day before the least-watched day of the week. Furthermore, his passing occurred in the middle of June, after the primary season had ended and after the television season had ended. In short, it was a perfect time to observe his life and record his death on TV, because there was nothing much of importance to pre-empt.

Of course, it helped that President Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama and seemingly half the U.S. Senate issued tributes to Russert in the hours after his death. But even if they hadn't, MSNBC still would probably have turned the next 72 hours into a Tim Russert Weekend of Remembrance. Well, what else were they going to do — show repeats of those "Lockup" documentaries? Come on. Of course they were going to memorialize their beloved Irish uncle, their "leader" (Keith Olbermann), their "best friend" (several NBCers), their "father figure" (Chuck Todd). Not to mention the most-watched Sunday morning host and a constant presence on MSNBC during this election season. NBC even joined in, having nothing to lose but perhaps a "American Gladiators" re-airing, and devoted an hour to a quickly assembled tribute on Friday.

After Friday, MSNBC eased up a bit — there was, after all, flooding in Iowa to cover — but by and large Russert remained the big story on Saturday and Sunday. CNN jumped in and poured hours into its own tributes to Russert, which may seem odd, but not really. I'm not a huge CNN fan but I know its tastes, and Russert was an ideal combination of narrative and celebrity for its audience. Also, did I mention it was a weekend, when viewing and staffing levels for cable news are (unlike the Iowa River) at low ebb?

What I've just written should be obvious to any full-time media critic, but apparently not Jack Shafer, the longtime "Press Box" writer for Slate, whose wonderful piece from 2003, "How to Beat Tim Russert," occupies a permanent place in Russertology (indeed, I cited it in my obit on Friday). On Monday night, an irritated Shafer published a completely unnecessary rip job under the broad-brush headline, "The media overdo Tim Russert's death."

The "media," it turns out, mostly consisted of properties on which Russert appeared regularly. Shafer piled up as many examples of NBC-branded excess that he could find — "The Chris Matthews Show"! "Meet the Press"! why, even the regular "Tim Russert" show on CNBC was pre-empted for a Tim Russert tribute special!! Shafer caught his breath, allowed grumpily that "at least NBC had an excuse for its news blindness" because "Russert was one of theirs," before revving his engine again:

The other networks didn't have that defense. CNN put Russert's demise into heavy rotation. On the evening of Russert's death, Larry King Live rounded up Barbara Walters, Ted Koppel, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, Paul Begala, Campbell Brown, and John Harwood, among others, for another round of veneration. King returned on Sunday with a "Best of Tim Russert" compilation. One place that the attention seemed warranted was on CNN's press-crit show, Reliable Sources, which did a segment. Said host Howard Kurtz, "Journalists who pass away are sometimes overpraised, given that it's journalists who do the praising, but not in this case."

Hey, hey, wait a minute, Jack. What's with this "networks," plural, business? You only mentioned one, the aforementioned No. 2 in cable news. Indeed, the rest of the TV dial seemed pretty much unaffected, devoting about as much coverage as you'd expect for a well-known TV star.

On the No. 1 news channel, Fox News, there was nothing like the coverage of Russert's death on MSNBC and CNN, aside from a generous portion of Neil Cavuto's show on Friday. Fox News, in fact, signed on bright and early Monday morning with a discussion of how "liberal" Russert was (earning, predictably, a rebuke on that night's "Countdown" as Keith Olbermann looked in the camera and asked, Couldn't you at least wait until after the funeral to bring that up??).

Shafer also tried to indict the print media as co-conspirators, citing Tom Shales' emotional tribute. Well, speaking for my trade, I think anytime Tom Shales is lumped in with any group, it says more about the accuser than the accused. There is only one Great One, and he was his usual energetic self in his remembrance of Russert, just as he's been in a hundred earlier remembrances of everyone from Jack Paar to Clayton Moore. The other examples were the kinds of pieces you'd expect from journos who knew Russert. Adam Nagourney's tribute in the New York Times probably took as much time to write as it took me to read.

I think Shafer may suffer from a related syndrome to being a "Beltway insider," that which afflicts people who live (or think) just outside the Beltway. He's so hyper-aware of how the D.C. syndrome can consume people's ethics and humanity that he discounts the very real connection that some of them (like the host of the No. 1-rated Sunday public affairs program) have with viewers — and not just political junkies either, but the ordinary folks who have been posting tributes to my web site and many, many others (including those who commented on the story by Tim Rutten, most of whom ignored how hard Rutten came down on Russert). Not a lot of those commenters were really that hung up with the amount of media coverage, so long as they could contribute in some small way, such as speculating on his successor or remembering his impact as an author, like the comment that began: "I read Big Russ and Me shortly after my father passed away..."

Shafer's gripe is that there is something "unseemly" about the fact that "his (Russert's) network, the other networks, and newspapers should continue to salute, remember, and otherwise memorialize him" throughout the weekend. Well, if you want to bet on that horse, Jack, go ahead. Me, I'm going to put two bucks on "if a bunch of media heavies want to spend a few hours paying tribute to a fallen colleague when they could be enjoying their weekend, let 'em."

UPDATE: And of course, I didn't even cover the most obvious reason CNN and MSNBC would go to such unseemly, narcissistic, self-absorbed lengths: it gets ratings!

Previously on TV Barn:

• Tim Russert, RIP
• Meet the Press at 60
• Russert and Imus

Comments

[Retired Dinosaur]

I understand the heavy coverage of Russert's death. I've been on the inside and the tributes and remembrances are cathartic.

I've been there when someone drops dead in the newsroom. I've been there when they pulled the reporters' bodies out of the wreckage of a plane crash, and I've been there when I had to make the phone call to let the wife or husband of a colleague know that my friend had died.

From an inside view, its an important part of the process to tell the dead person's story and hold a very public wake. And viewers want to know this, to some degree. But on Friday afternoon, with MSNBC hosts asking reporters, "what does Russert's death mean for this country?, you have to think, it was a little too much.

And, as a viewer, by Sunday evening I was longing for the Chevy Chase parody of John Chancellor. You remember, "Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

Tim Russert is STILL dead!

[Andy]

My only problem with the coverage was NBC's devoting Friday night's Nightly News entirely to remembrances of Russert. Since they didn't have much time to prepare, they could do little but bring on roughly a dozen people who all said pretty much the same thing. To allow for that, they completely dropped their special coverage of the largely-forgotten war in Afghanistan as well as the Midwest flood, a historic disaster that would go on to claim lives and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

For a while, NBC News made a cottage industry out of pummelling the Bush administration for being too preoccupied with other things to deal with the flooding of Katrina. I sensed an uncomfortable parallel to that Friday night.

[Allison Solow]

What bothered me, Aaron, was that the 3-day long tribute-a-thon was out of proportion. I mean, if they do this for Tim Russert, what will they do when Mike Wallace and Walter Cronkite pass away in the future? And Peter Jennings was as important a journalist as Russert, in my estimation, but didn't get this kind of memorial. MSNBC went overboard, but yes, they had hours to fill. And you bring up a good reason for CNN's coverage (celebrity). Overall, I just think it sets a president that's going to be difficult to match. Like I said, Cronkite, Wallace, what about Paul Newman? I fear we're likely to see some cable outlet turn in to all-obits all of the time.

(If CBS had a cable news channel, I would agree with you. But MSNBC is unique in that it is directly tied to one of the big three traditional broadcast networks. As for proportionality, I would just point out that the average American has more than 100 channels on cable, and that cable news channels on the weekend draw a very small fraction of the audience. One motivating reason for the Russert tribute at both CNN and MSNBC is that someone there decided, "It couldn't hurt." --AB)

[ellen sweets]

as a retired reporter who misses the days when reporters just covered the news and didn't make it, i admired and respected russert's intelligence and professionalism. several of my friends, not reporters, drew solace from NBC's coverage as well. i fail to see the point of trashing said coverage inasmuch as we all have the option of not watching. show preempted? read a book. a magazine. talk to your wife/son/daughter. water the lawn. jeez.

[psemerson]

I liked Tim Russert as much as the next guy (and it seems like all the next guys liked him a lot), but NBC's coverage went on far too long. An hour-long tribute on NBC and a couple hours of remembrances on MSNBC would be about right -- I don't know if even Walter Mondale would get that today -- and maybe a repeat of all on Sunday evening. I'd even dare to say that Tim Russert himself might think they'd went on too long about a news presenter, not a newsmaker.

[Kevbo]

Shafer is the kind of "hater" that the 18-30 demographic has had to deal with for a long time. There are some people in this world who feel they HAVE to complain about EVERYTHING!

Shafer has no reason to even write this article. As of now, the funeral has yet to be held, so what is wrong with NBC offering its viewers what they must be tuning in to see.

If the ratings come back and show that a lot of folks tuned out of the coverage, then complain all you like, but until then... stop complaining and change the channel.

Every point you made is well taken. How old is this Shafer, early twenties?

(Ha! I think my older brother is younger than him.--AB)

[mary mcnamara]

I'm with you, Aaron. I was taken aback by Shafer's sniping. I, too, noticed the extensive coverage on CNN but didn't think the sincere outpouring was "unseemly." On Friday night, I was in Canada, trying to stay abreast of the other outpouring - the Iowa floods. CNN sandwiched flood news segments in between the Russert remembrances. Perhaps CNN's coverage can be attributed to the influence of Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and Joe Johns. Brown credited Russert for giving her the big network break (at NBC, before she shifted to CNN). It was very clear that Brown was devastated by the news of his death. Joe Johns also worked closely with Russert before joining CNN in 2004. (Johns covered Capitol Hill for NBC News for more than 10 years.) And Wolf Blitzer, like Russert, hailed from Buffalo, NY. Blitzer stood by Russert's side during his audience with the Pope - the fulfillment of a life-long dream for Russert, a devout Catholic. CNN correspondents wanted to honor a respected friend and colleague. Brown read the heartfelt note Russert sent her just a few months ago, shortly after the birth of her first child. It seemed to me that Russert was mostly recognized for his tireless generosity - not because of a beltway fixation among the journalists who cover the beat.

[Fairview Paul]

I wanted someone - anyone - to have a detailed discussion on the Supreme Court decision released late Thursday or early Friday that sends all of the GITMO detainees pouring into the federal court system and may bring an end to the military tribunals --- AND what the decision means to the legacy of George Bush ( 0-3 in Supreme Court decisions related to terrorism detainees) ---- and how do "legal interpretations" by the Bush administration stand up to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. those pesky "signing statements")?

I'm sure Tim Russert was a good man and I feel for his family; but in 100 years the history books (e-books?) may well be talking about how GW Bush ultimately failed to further the rule of law, which remains - despite GW's worst efforts - the backbone of our national existence and source of our relative prospertiy.