The myth of the "Russert Primary"
December 09, 2008 12:16 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
With NBC's hugely important announcement that David Gregory will be the guy who asks questions on Meet The Press, the press has been in full, MTP worship mode. (It's not just a TV show people, it's an institution) Leading the charge, Howard Kurtz at the WaPo:
In what was dubbed the Russert Primary, a presidential candidate's stock would rise or fall depending on how he or she handled the interrogation.
This is beyond Beltway CW, it's official mythology. What Kurtz left out was the fact that the Russert Primary was often quite different depending on whether you were a Democratic or Republican candidate, as I quote from Lapdogs:
During the hour-long sit-down, [Howard] Dean faced off against a clearly combative host, Tim Russert, who prepared for the interview in part by asking the Bush Treasury Department to produce what the Washington Post later called a "highly selective" analysis of the Democratic candidate's proposed tax program. The GOP-friendly analysis prompted Russert to ask incredulously to Dean, "Can you honestly go across the country and say, "I'm going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent" and be elected?"
That was Russert's second substantive question of the interview. His first was about the then-recent arrest of Dean's son for helping steal beer from a country club. Russert though, famed for his pre-show prep, botched the facts and erroneously informed viewers that Dean's teenage son had been "indicted." Deep into the interview Russert asked how many men and women were currently serving in the U.S. military, a gotcha-style question designed solely to put Dean on the spot. When Dean said he didn't know the exact number, Russert lectured the candidate, "As commander in chief, you should know that." Dean answered the question by saying there were between 1 and 2 million men and women in active duty; according to the Pentagon, there were in fact 1.4 million.
But travel back in time to November, 1999 when Russert had a far more civil sit-down with then-candidate Bush. (Russert: "Can kids avoid sex?" Bush: "I hope so. I think so.") Russert, in a rare move, even agreed to leave his NBC studio and to travel to Bush's home turf in Texas to conduct the interview, thereby giving the Texas governor a sort of home-field advantage. In fact, Russert first flew down to Austin in April 1999 to "get to know the governor of Texas," as the moderator put it, and to begin lobbying Bush for a Meet the Press appearance. (There's no indication Russert ever traveled up to Vermont in 2003 to "get to know" Dean or to persuade him to appear on the Sunday talk show.)
For nearly 60 minutes Bush and Russert talked about key issues, but Russert never tried to pin the Republican candidate down the way he did Dean. When the host did spring a specific policy question on Bush, asking how many missiles would still be in place if a new START II nuclear weapons treaty were signed, a stumped Bush simply answered: "I can't remember the exact number." But unlike his session with Dean, Russert dropped the topic without lecturing Bush that "as commander in chief, you should know that."
I'm not being mean or morbid or rude, and truly have no bad intention or ill meaning, when I sincerely ask: if whoever NBC chooses as it's mouthpiece on their television show Meet The Press, should suddenly and tragically shuffle off their mortal coils, then do we need to weep and gnash our teeth, like we (or maybe just you) did for Tim Russert?
I mean, if the line drawn now includes someone named Gregory, then just where is the line drawn?
Because when the o'reillys and chris matthews and tom brokaws (and many others) of the media eventually shuffle off their mortal coils (our coils really), I'm not going to weep or gnash my teeth, or tear at my clothes or even look sad, the way you all did, for Tim Russert.
I don't know where the line is drawn for such Sainthood, nor do I care at all for NBC's latest Saint, this guy Gregory.
I agree 100%, and find the whole thing to be a remarkable case study, of which the media aspect is significant here.
True, lots of folks have so little (if none at all) experience with mortality, that their initial reaction to that fact of life, is often childish and fearful, superstitious and supernatural... combine that with another strange and contemporary weakness of mind: that people on television are your friends and aquaintances (and maybe even your family), and sure, the two things put together (an ignorant misunderstanding and reluctance to accept mortality as an unavoidable fact of life, and the weird delusion that the televised employees of broadcasters are your friends, just because they appear regularly in your living room or at the foot of your bed), and you have in part an explanation for the truly bizarre canonization of NBC's Tim Russert.
I would add this note to the tune: that NBC did play upon these two strange traits found amongst so many Americans (a great and traumatic reaction to death, and the delusional feelings felt towards televised people), and they promoted the death of Tim Russert, in a manner that might embarrass even a deceased Pope or a deceased President (if deceased persons could ever feel embarrassment, which they cannot)...
NBC did play up and greatly overplay, the death of Tim Russert.
And in so doing, they advertised and marketed themselves incessantly, and marketed the brand name "Meet The Press" all the while... you saw this too, didn't you?
I mean, if you were otherwise mature and accepting of untimely and tragic death (who waits patiently for us all), and did also know that televised people are the employees and spokespersons for the broadcasters (and their interests), that pay them so handsomely (millions was what Tim Russert received: Gregory now also)...
You saw it all this way too, that NBC's canonization of Tim Russert was a marketing of NBC, didn't you?
I did.
And I'm as wary now as ever, against having televised hacks try and influence and manipulate my political opinions, as I ever was... be they someone named Gregory or someone named Tim Russert, or even his son...
I'm not so immature (at this late stage) nor ignorant, to invite General Electric's division (known as NBC), to influence and manipulate my political opinions... not them, or any employee of theirs, however Saintly (or now fatherless: we are all destined to bury our fathers, or be buried by them).
It's neither here nor there really, but asking the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed forces, how many missles there are at any place or time, is not a "specific policy question", or any question at all about policy... whatever the answer to such a question would be, it would come from a uniformed Military Officer whose responsibility it was to know such a thing: and still, maybe it's not the kind of thing meant for a public discussion, just how many missles there are here or there, or exactly where they are, and what is their capacity... where does such talk begin and end?
It's not called policy.