DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Fluivelip** · 06-14-2008, 07:28 PM

I

I don't necessarily agree with the accolades. He was not unbiased in his reporting and he was just one of the huge crowd of reporters as journalism crumbled in the face of the current presidential administration.

He was a television personality. We saw his face a lot.

He is gone and won't be on anymore. That's the shock of it.

I disagree with the notion he was biased. What I think is registering in your post is an undercurrent of disappointment with regard to how the press failed to challenge the Bush administration's case for going to war. Perhaps you believe Russert too failed to make the challenge.

I Think Russert worked very hard to ensure his show did not become a type of O'Reilly Factor show where partisans including the moderator shout over each other to make their point. Instead, his objective seemed to have the principle him or herself establish the public record and than to be held to it.

The Dick Cheney interview was classic. Russert did not editorialize. He did not suggest that the administration was falsifying evidence or manufacturing the case for war. He did not see that as his role. But he did get Cheney on record saying we would be granted as liberators and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And he did get Cheney to indicate that was the justification for going to war. That interview became THE public record regarding the administration's stance and has been used over and over again.

I am sure Cheney rues the day he said that on Meet the Press, and Russert is the one who pushed him to it. True he did not challenge him hard that day, but he got him on record and that counts for something too.

06-14-2008, 07:28 PM	#11
Fluivelip Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 549 Senior Member	I I don't necessarily agree with the accolades. He was not unbiased in his reporting and he was just one of the huge crowd of reporters as journalism crumbled in the face of the current presidential administration. He was a television personality. We saw his face a lot. He is gone and won't be on anymore. That's the shock of it. I disagree with the notion he was biased. What I think is registering in your post is an undercurrent of disappointment with regard to how the press failed to challenge the Bush administration's case for going to war. Perhaps you believe Russert too failed to make the challenge. I Think Russert worked very hard to ensure his show did not become a type of O'Reilly Factor show where partisans including the moderator shout over each other to make their point. Instead, his objective seemed to have the principle him or herself establish the public record and than to be held to it. The Dick Cheney interview was classic. Russert did not editorialize. He did not suggest that the administration was falsifying evidence or manufacturing the case for war. He did not see that as his role. But he did get Cheney on record saying we would be granted as liberators and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And he did get Cheney to indicate that was the justification for going to war. That interview became THE public record regarding the administration's stance and has been used over and over again. I am sure Cheney rues the day he said that on Meet the Press, and Russert is the one who pushed him to it. True he did not challenge him hard that day, but he got him on record and that counts for something too.
	Quote