Thoughts About Tim Russert and How Sunday Morning News Shows Have Changed

Those of you who followed the news before it was entertainment will remember Tim Russert as the host of Sunday morning’s Meet the Press.  His interviews were always enlightening and often showed us the weaknesses of politicians and/or their positions.  But the key to those interviews was that Russert asked the questions that the audience wanted asked, and he got the answers.  That was what he gave us, and he had the respect for his audience that they could use that gift to make up their own minds about the information.  What Mr. Russert did not do was present us with his own agenda and use answers or non-answers of his guests to argue for his position on an issue.   

Tim Russert was always respectful of his guests, no matter what he personally may have thought of them or their positions.  When he asked a question, he demanded an answer; he did not allow non-answers to go unchallenged but would simply allow the non-answer, then ask the question again.  (His audience was perfectly capable of noting the attempted evasion; Mr. Russert did not have to tell us) When he got an answer to a question, he would let the answer stand.  He did not attack it in an attempt to argue his own position.  He did not editorialize about the answer.  Rather, he would let the audience make their own judgments about the answer provided.

Here is a transcript of a piece of a Russert interview with Al Gore about abortion (from a piece written by Nicholas Lemann, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/24/buffalo-tim ), with my notes in italics:

Russert: When do you think life begins?

Gore:I favor the Roe vs. Wade approach, but let me just say, Tim, I did--

[note how Russert cuts him off as he begins not to answer the question, and refocuses on the question]

Russert: Which is what? When does life begin?

Gore: Let me just say, I did change my position on the issue of federal funding and I changed it because I came to understand more from women—women think about this differently than men.

[and, again, he returns to try to get an answer to the question]

Russert: But you were calling fetuses innocent human life, and now you don’t believe life begins at conception. I’m just trying to find out, when do you believe life begins?

Gore: Well, look, the Roe vs. Wade decision proposes an answer to that question—

[and, again, the question:]

Russert: Which is?

Note that what Russert does not do is editorialize about Gore’s non-answer, nor does he argue with Gore about the statements he is making.  Russert simply lets his questions and the interviewee’s answers (or in this case non-answers) speak for themselves.  He does not cross-examine Gore or try to prove that Gore’s statements are correct or incorrect, good or bad.  He just asks the questions and leaves the audience to understand and make its own judgments about the answers received.

Russert made frequent use of quotes previously uttered by his guests.  He would ask a guest to explain a quote.  The question might very well leave interviewees at a loss to explain themselves or appear to be caught in a lie.  But Mr. Russert would not call them a liar; rather, he would let the interviewee’s words and/or confusion speak for themselves.

Russert, in an interview of him (http://emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/tim-russert# ), talks about the enormous amount of preparation he did for each guest on Meet the Press, including intense study of the issue, of news reports, books, magazines about it, and talking to “real people.”   He notes that the guests never had the questions in advance (“this is not professional wrestling”), but that he expected the guests to do their own preparation for what they assumed would be the topics of the day.  If a guest asked to discuss a particular topic, Russert might do so, but the guest would never know the specific questions or approach that Russert would take. 

In the video, Russert also talks about the need to challenge his interviewees in “an aggressive, but civil way.”  He notes that “the questions you [the interviewer] are asking do not represent your personal views; you are asking them to elicit a response.”  He believed it was his job to ask his guests the questions that his viewers were concerned about, the questions that affected their lives.  Listening to this Russert interview you see the enormous respect that he has for the American people and their ability to think for themselves.  He asked questions that gave his viewers the information they needed to make well-reasoned judgments and decisions about politics. He certainly did not believe that it was his job to prosecute for one view or defend another or to try to sway the public to his personal view on an issue.

Wow, how different these shows are today.  The questions are not open ended, but are leading, designed to elicit a response that will further the interviewer’s agenda and strengthen his or her position on the point.  Questions go unanswered when that is favorable to the interviewer’s agenda, just as answers are attacked when the interviewer wants to show that his/her position and not the interviewee’s position is the correct position on an issue.  There is certainly no civility when the interviewee holds a position opposite to that of the interviewer.  And, with today's interviewers' personal positions on issues so clear, the interview really becomes not a presentation of information for the viewer, but nothing more than a presentation of an argument of why the interviewer’s position is correct or of how clever the interviewer is. 

While Tim Russert may have played “gotcha” from time to time, he did so by simply asking questions and allowing answers; it was the interviewee’s own answers that got him, not Mr. Russert (though, I assume Mr. Russert often knew what would be the result of the question and answer).  Now these Sunday morning (and other) news shows are simply a constant game of “gotcha” in which the interviewer attacks in a constant effort to show how he/she got the interviewee and in so doing furthered the personal beliefs and agenda of the interviewer, not of his audience.  There is really no respect for or belief in the audience’s ability to think for itself.

Perhaps the audience likes watching this “Gotcha” game show; these shows, after all, have now become a form of entertainment.  But what has been lost is a respect for the viewing audience and its ability to take information presented objectively, and make their own judgments about that information.   What we lose are facts and truth.  And that loss is significant when we are talking about issues that affect our country and our lives.