A column by David Carr at the front of today's NYT business section offers valuable perspective on the untimely passing of Tim Russert. In particular, it places his death in the broader context of the waning influence of the TM in the political process.
Tim Russert the father, the son, and the friend obviously had many admirable qualities. The profound sense of loss that KO conveyed Friday evening made it clear that Russert was an ally of KO's in a business in which, generally w/ good reason, KO has made his share of enemies. The hagiography we've seen on NBC in particular and on network TV in general, however, has been disproportionate to his contribution to our public debate.
Edward R. Murrow was younger than Russert when lung cancer took him in 1965. Between his reporting from London during the Blitz, his open confrontation of Joe McCarthy, and his highlighting of the gross inequities of migrant farmworker conditions, Murrow contributed far more to our national debate than Russert could've ever dreamed of contributing. Murrow made enemies, including, ultimately, CBS head William Paley, b/c he was willing to speak truth to power.
Since I was in first grade when Murrow died, I have no recollection of the event. I've never seen any account, however, that indicated that his death received a fraction of the attention that Russert's death has received. Obviously, cable news was still years off on the horizon, and CBS wasn't going to give major air time noting the death of a journalist who left the network after repeated clashes w/ Paley. Even taking into account those different contexts, however, this contrast is highly instructive.
It can be argued that the attention that Russert's death is an implicit acknowledgement that the influence of the power center in which he exercised so much authority is visibly starting to wane. Carr's column summarizes the milieu in which Russert was such a major figure:
For decades, American national politics has been the province of a meritocracy, a self-nominated, self-important bunch who choose to be part of the media-political apparatus because it is a bloody sport for very high stakes. And it has historically pivoted around a rather tidy triangle defined by the parlors of Georgetown, the lobbyists on K Street and lunches at The Palm. And once a week, hierarchy is assigned and tribute is paid on the Sunday morning shows, with "Meet the Press" long being the more equal of equals.
Carr, however, thinks that the 2008 campaign has demonstrated the decline of this "tidy triangle" in the face of the growing influence of the blogosphere. In particular, Carr notes:
Not many people know who Mayhill Fowler is — she’s a citizen journalist on The Huffington Post who works for no money and couldn’t find The Palm without Google Maps — but twice this year she has altered the campaign, first by catching Senator Obama sounding awfully elitist about the working class — "they cling to guns or religion" — and second by catching Bill Clinton coming off as if he had lost his mind.
The Obama campaign itself has upset the tidy arrangement that was summarized above. The dogged reluctance of HRC's campaign to acknowledge the delegate arithmetic that had been obvious for weeks exemplified an ancien regime that did not wish to relenquish its power. The likes of Carville, McAuliffe, Wolfson, et al clearly wanted to maintain a hierarchy in which they held secure positions of influence.
As Carr notes, this version of Washington was "tilted...off its axis" by the Obama campaign's success:
Who are all these people? Where did all this money come from? And when we made those speeches about youth voting, we didn’t expect that they would actually have a role in deciding who the candidate is.
Russert and his ilk clearly did not lose all influence b/c of the rise of the Obama Phenomenon and the 'sphere that made it possible. Russert proclaimed in the wee hours of 5/6 that Obama's decisive win in NC and close fight in IN effectively clinched the nomination for him. I knew at the time that that pronouncement carried far more weight than similar statements from Chuck Todd, even though Todd's statements came from much more in-depth analysis.
Russert himself probably would not have placed himself in the same league as Murrow and Cronkite in the pantheon of TV journalists. Where he belongs below those giants is for others to determine. NBC is free to engage in several days of public mourning, and I am just as free to not watch such mourning.
There is a bigger point, however, that seems to be lost in this site's discussion of this event. As the influence of the 'sphere waxes, the influence of TM institutions like Russert wanes. We will never know what influence he would've exercised in the rest of this campaign, but that influence likely would not have matched the influence that he exercised in 2000.