I think I have a clue where you are right now. A man you deeply admired, not so much older than you are, has died suddenly and the whole world you inhabit probably seems less than what it was, not as real, not as meaningful, paradoxically more meaningful. Times like these tend to call everything into question, force us to reevaluate our lives. Often we find ourselves called to embody the best of the person we have lost.
Keith, I believe that is something you should consider doing.
Let me be clear: it is way too late to become the paragon of objectivity that Tim Russert was. That cat hasn't seen a bag for years. Furthermore, I wouldn't want you to be something other than what you are, which is a strong voice for progressive ideas. But there are a lot of things you can do that would both strengthen your voice and add to your credibility as a journalist in a way that would be a credit to Mr. Russert.
- More facts. Sometimes you're good about this. Sometimes you tend to lean on "So is Bush/McCain/O'Reilly just evil, or stupid, or both? Howard?" "Ok, so if he isn't stupid he must just be assuming we are, Eugene?" Please Keith, everytime you feel tempted to use something like that, stop and try and bring in some more facts to support your argument instead.
- Bring in a greater diversity of guests. Listen, love Rachel Maddow. Howard Fineman, Richard Wolfe, Dana Milbanks, Eugene Robinson, the legal guy whose name escapes me, I like them all. I've even grown fond of Pat Buchanan. But at least once per show, on some critical issue, try and bring in someone who actually knows that issue in a depth that reaches beyond the punditocracy. Did you see the post high up there on the rec list about the effects of depleted uranium? That would be a great story, and an excellent example of a story where an informed expert would be invaluable.
- WPIW should really be WPIW. I understand that it is basically aimed at politics and media, thats fine, but sometimes its just a little too...personal. Sometimes its less "politicians and media figures who were nasty and deceitful and did a disservice to the American public" and more "people Keith really wants to screw with tonight, probably O'Reilly and Murdoch" Do you know what would REALLY kill O'Reilly? If you ignored him for a while. Thats the secret rules of the game, Keith. First one to contend he has more important things to talk about then what the other is saying, wins. Now is the time. You're beating him in the ratings. Start ignoring him now and he will go apeshit.
- The "comedians" you sometimes bring in for the last segment? They hurt me. Physical pain. I wince with my whole body. The humor is forced and unfunny. No, everytime. I'm not saying a special comment everynight, I'm not saying it has to always be serious. But if you are going to incorporate a comedic angle, please make it funny and witty and make me feel wittier just by hearing it. If it doesn't do that, then axe it and find something to tell me that will make me smarter. Maybe some underreported issue, a bill before congress with ramifications that haven't been explored, some thing noone else is talking about in broadcast media.
In short, maybe focus a little less on getting me to nod my head in agreement with you, although thats nice, and a little more making me smarter, better informed, a better citizen. That's a heavy burden, I realize, but if you hadn't shown me many times that you were capable of it, I would probably have stopped watching already. NBC/MSNBC is where I get all my mainstream news, and your show is a big part of that, as was Mr. Russert's. Everyone will need to step up and do him proud, but I'm counting on you especially. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended. Go Get 'Em.