Meet the Press: same as it ever was

By Creature

Newsday's TV Reporter, Verne Gay, thinks Meet the Press "is now the de facto safe show on Sunday morning" since David Gregory took over. Really?

The problem? Actually, problems. The new moderator often seems like he's wearing a suit made for someone else - Russert - and as a result has yet to clearly establish why he got this gig instead of anyone else in the conga line of potential successors. Gregory is terrifically polished, well-informed, a good listener and has the talking points of both sides down cold. But he also seems more intent on covering the waterfront than digging for news, or in pushing the talking heads off their talking points.

I agree with Verne, "pushing people off their talking points" is not a Gregory strong suit, but, then again, I don't recall Russert knocking many people off theirs either.

Just ask Dick Cheney.

Developing Story -- MSNBC making pitches to become Eulogy Channel

By J. Thomas Duffy

Sources tell The Garlic that executives at NBC and MSNBC, buoyed by, surprisingly, extremely strong overnight ratings, have quickly put together a crack team of producers and advertising salespeople and are, quietly, pitching to Fortune 500 companies, as well as other large public and private institutions, the opportunity to have their leaders eulogized and remembered in the same manner that NBC/MSNBC has done for, the now-departed Tim Russert.

To drive the sense of urgency to the prospective purchasers of what NBC/MSNBC is calling "Eulogy Packages", the sales brochure is being sent with a complimentary Buffalo Bills cap, and miniature erasable whiteboard.

As we continue to review the voluminous sales package provided by our source, NBC/MSNBC are offering a vast array of options, from special, highlighted news item mentions, to by-the-hour tributes, to multiple day, 24/7 broadcasting, complete with NBC/MSNBC, and CNBC on-air talent.

"This is extremely ambitious," offered Bruno Anthony, editor of "The Final Close-Up", an on-line newsletter that tracks the amount of time television news programs allot to the death of prominent persons. "This has never been done before ... Proactively selling airtime for this purpose ... For death ..."

"It's one thing if the deceased is already in the news, a prominent politician, businessman, or, celebrity," continued Anthony. "But this can open up serious ethical and standards questions ... Like, if you don't pay, will NBC not report your death?"

Pricing is steep, ranging from high-five-and-six-figures, and significantly higher.

One package, the top, or Gold Plan, is the most expensive.

The Gold Plan is available only to those person who have been interviewed, on-air, by the late Tim Russert.

This is a multiple-day tribute package, with the Russert interview of the deceased customer being broadcast in prime time.

And to protect the exclusivity of this Gold Plan, NBC/MSNBC, as they continue, into the 4th day now, their "Remembering Tim Russert", will only broadcast B-Roll of Russert interviewing colleagues, or making appearances on the various NBC or MSNBC programs.

All NBC/MSNBC on-air talent under contract are available for these Eulogy Packages, with three -- Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Andrea Mitchell -- positioned at the higher pricing.

Additionally, throughout the sales package, upselling of combo-talent, having multiple NBC/MSNBC persons waxing on about the deceased, is encouraged.

Only two CNBC on-air talent -- Erin Burnett and Margaret Brennan -- are referenced as being available in these Eulogy Packages.

As to non-NBC/MSNBC on-air talent, the talking heads, those are priced ala carte, and subject to availability.

Of those mentioned in the sales package, included Mike Barnicle, Lawrence O'Donnell, Bob Shrum, Al Hunt, Hillary Rosen, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, and a host of others, with the deceased having to provide scripts of what they want discussed, or how the pundits should describe the dead customer.

Former MSNBC on-air talent Rita Cosby is not offered in any of the Eulogy Packages, however, MSNBC will provide contact information for the deceased purchasing a plan to negotiate with Cosby directly.

Special Doc Blocks are also available, with pricing noted as TBD.

The NBC/MSNBC sales package also notes that all costs reflect in-studio work only.

The deceased purchasing any of the Eulogy Package plans will incur additional costs if they wish to have on-site events included, such as funerals, memorial services, hospital watches, and candlelight vigils.

Protesters can also be included for an additional fee.

One whimsical offering comes with the 'Today' Program.

As with most of the Eulogy Packages, for an additional fee, the deceased's burial location can be included as a stop, in the Today program's feature, "Where In The World Is Matt Lauer," with the Today program of that day being build around the deceased package purchaser.

Anthony sees this as a heavy push for NBC/MSNBC, with a "striking while the iron is hot" mentality.

"It could be big, they can see the dollar signs adding up," says Anthony.

"And, you're likely to see them continuing to roll out "Remembering Tim Russert" programming ... That's their biggest sales tool ... This will go on for days ... Probably, weeks ... "

**********

Bonus Remember Tim Russert Riffs

Barry Crimmins: Overkill

Dennis Perrin: No Moment Of Silence

We've Gone Well Past The 15-Minutes Thing ...

Little Russ Gone ...











(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Russertpalooza

By Creature

I have to say I'm with John Cole on this one. After watching an hour or so of MSNBC's coverage last night on the death of its boss, I, too, needed them to shut the fuck up and get on with the news. It's not only that Russert's colleagues were making a myriad of excuses for Meet the Press being the preferred platform to disseminate lies, unquestioned, to the American people, it's that there was real news to report yesterday. However, I'm not sure why this actually pissed me off since any real news has been absent from television for years (and then some).

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Tim Russert (1950-2008)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Tim Russert died today of an apparent heart attack. He was 58.

Although I was often critical of him -- or, rather, of his work -- I respected and genuinely liked him. He was one of those indispensable figures on the American political scene. He will be greatly missed.

I wrote a lengthy (and rather critical) post on Russert last November -- see here.

Memorandum has much more reaction to his death here -- including articles at WaPo, NYT, and CNN.

WaPo's Chris Cillizza has a nice remembrance of Russert here, as does my friend Joe Gandelman here. (See also Russert's Wikipedia entry here.)

From all of us at The Reaction, on this sad day, our thoughts go out to the Russert family.

Nader to run for ...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

By Edward Copeland

Yes, Tim Russert gave the famous consumer advocate and Harold Stassen wannabe time today on Meet the Press to announce (surprise) that he is planning to seek the presidency as a third-party candidate once again in 2008. After running as the Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000 and then as an independent in 2004, Nader plans to try again as he approaches his 74th birthday meaning that, unbelievably, John McCain may end up being the second-youngest contender for the presidency this year.

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form," Nader said. "You think the American people are going to vote for a pro-war John McCain who almost gives an indication he's the candidate for perpetual war?"

Now, while I feel Nader's pursuit is silly (as some asked today, "What constituency is beating the drums for him to run?"), I dread the inevitable rise of the he cost Al Gore the 2000 election, etc.

There is something inherently undemocratic in complaining about third-party candidates siphoning votes from their man or woman. Could Nader voters have swung several states to Gore's column in 2000? Sure, but you could also argue that Pat Buchanan's votes cost Dubya several states as well. It's annoying to hear people whine because they aren't limited to two choices. I must have missed the part of the Constitution that mentions political parties at all, let alone limiting them to two.

Still, Nader's 2008 exercise will be even more pointless than his 2004 run was. In 2000, he garnered several million votes, in 2004 he was down to less than 500,000. My guess is that in a McCain vs. Obama or Clinton race, he'll get even fewer, if he can even manage to get on that many state ballots.

Russert shouldn't have even given him the platform because by now his reputation is more that of a gadfly than a hero. Very little separates Ralph Nader from Lyndon Larouche at this point. Let it go, Ralph.

Is Hillary running or is that Amy Poehler?

By Edward Copeland

Obviously, I've been on the record quite often as being against Hillary Clinton, partly because I don't believe she stands for anything other than political expediency and her own ambition, but mostly because I don't believe she can win the 2008 General Election, an election that should be a gimme for the Democratic Party.

Ever since the October debate where she flubbed the question on illegal immigrants and driver's licenses, the Clinton campaign has destroyed their argument that she's withstood blistering attacks from the GOP for years and would be best equipped to fight next year. The most important thing about that debate was that it would have been a mere blip in an otherwise smooth-running campaign, but that self-inflicted wound showed the world the Hillary and her campaign live in a bubble as impenetrable as the one in which Dubya resides.

First, the campaign leaks to Matt Drudge that it was all Tim Russert's fault, then they decided that all the other candidates from the "all boys club" were piling on her because she was a woman. When that spin backfired, they denied that they were saying she was being attacked for her gender, but because she was "winning," despite the fact that no vote had been cast.

Then, Bill Clinton comes riding to the rescue and perhaps the most talented politician of his generation shows he's a bit rusty, first by appearing to be trying to protect his woman (going so far as to equate criticism of her to the Swift Boating of John Kerry), then by undermining her spurious claims to be an integral part of everything that happened in his administration by trying to say Hillary's health care reform failures were all his fault.

Still, Hillary tries to take credit for the good stuff and her surrogates, such as former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, make crazy claims like saying she was "the face of foreign policy" during the Clinton administration. When she wanted credit for the Clinton economy, Barack Obama correctly pointed out that she wasn't the treasury secretary, that was Robert Rubin.

This week — and we're barely halfway through it — Bill and Hillary have each offered moments that must puzzle even those who support her candidacy.

While stumping in Iowa yesterday, Bill said that he'd opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, when there is ample video and other evidence to prove otherwise. Then, on later stops, he changed his wording to say he opposes it now.

For me though, this week's capper, the most damning evidence of the Hillary's delusions, that make comparisons between her and Dubya even more striking, came during a one-on-one interview Katie Couric.

When Couric asked if Hillary would be disappointed if she doesn't win the nomination, Hillary responded:

“Well, it will be me."

Couric reasonably said that she has to have considered the possibility that she won't win. Her reply: "No, I haven't."

There is a line between confidence and a sense of entitlement. Most candidates don't like to admit that they might not win, just like most who get asked questions about accepting a vice president slot, brush it off. That's perfectly understandable. This was different. Her entire demeanor in the interview made it seem as if she was living up to Amy Poehler's parody of her on Saturday Night Live where she gave an early acceptance speech for the presidency, assuming that it was a given that she would not only win the Democratic nomination but the presidency as well.

The 2008 presidential election truly is the most important in a long time and the Democratic Party and the country as a whole cannot afford to become a victim to one person's fantasies.

When and if Hillary starts losing contests, we may see a meltdown that will make Howard Dean's scream sound like a whisper.

The disgrace debate

By Edward Copeland

Anyone who reads me knows that it is my mission to stop the Democrats from making the fatal mistake of nominating Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton as their 2008 standardbearer because she will be the easiest for the GOP to beat in an election that should be a cakewalk.

However, I'm not going to whine about her today. This post is solely to slam what used to be a reputable news channel, CNN. Their debate last night was atrocious. There have been criticism of the moderators and questions at other debates (such as Tim Russert), but by God, at least NBC knows how to corral an audience. It was ridiculous to hear candidates drowned out by boos because the audience had been stacked with so many partisans.

As a TV show, it failed as well with that inane opening giving us a glimpse of the "pre-debate photo op." Yes, that's something essential that America needs to see while Wolf Blitzer drones on and time is wasted. Some of the best parts did come from the audience questions, but that turned ridiculous by closing with the diamonds or pearls question for Hillary, memories of boxers or briefs dancing in my head. Of course, that was at an MTV forum, not CNN.

As for the debate itself, it seemed pretty much a wash to me. Obama fumbled a bit at times and Edwards seemed cowed by the ridiculous booing. Once again, Biden always ends up being the most thoughtful and entertaining candidate on the stage. It's a shame his campaign isn't going anywhere.

I have to ask why the Dems snubbed Fox debates when this CNN debacle had to be worse than even the worst Fox debate could be.

Tiny Tim: Meet the Press and the undermining of American democracy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Our must-read of the day is a fantastic piece by Paul Waldman at The American Prospect on Tim Russert -- who he is, what he stands for, and how the insider media culture he embodies is harming not just political discourse in America but America's very political process. Make sure to read the entire piece, but here are a few key passages:

Last month, near the end of the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert -- known as "Washington's toughest interviewer" and perhaps the most influential journalist in America -- had one last chance to pin the candidates down with his legendary common sense, persistence, and no-bull style. This is what he asked, first to Barack Obama:

"There's been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question. Senator Obama, what is your favorite Bible verse?"

When Obama finished his answer, Russert said to the other candidates, "I want to give everyone a chance in this. You just take 10 seconds." Predictable banality ensued. A foreign visitor unfamiliar with our presidential campaigns might have scratched her head and said, "This is how you decide who will lead your country?"

Indeed it is, because the process is controlled by Tim Russert and people like him. Russert's Bible question encapsulates everything wrong with him, and with our political coverage more generally. It seeks to make candidates look bad rather than finding out something important about them (if you want to explore a candidate's religious beliefs, you don't do it in pop-quiz form and give them just ten seconds to answer). It substitutes the personal anecdote for the policy position, the sound-bite for the substantive answer. It distills the debate into a series of allegedly symbolic, supposedly meaningful moments that can be replayed.

This type of debate question is not about what the candidate believes and would actually do in office, but about how clever the moderator is for cornering the candidate. And above all, it takes a genuinely relevant matter (a candidate's view of the universe) and crams it through a channel by which the thoughtful candidate will be pilloried and the shallow, pandering, overly rehearsed candidate will garner praise.

Russert claims -- and claims repeatedly, ad nauseam -- that he speaks for "Buffalo," the heartland, the working class, speaking truth to power, demanding answers from those in power, demanding on behalf of the people, Buffalo's man in Washington, at the Georgetown cocktail parties, tearing down the Establishment from within, a horse full of Greeks holding Troy at bay, ready and eager to strike, whenever necessary.

But -- not so much. What Russert is really about is not "Buffalo" -- he doth protest far, far too much, and it's all an act, a "well-designed" persona, artifice, a concoction, a performance -- but unaccountable self-glorification:

The two parties' nominees will be decided three months from now, and we can be sure that in that time, at least one or two candidates will have their campaigns upended by the answer they gave to an absurd question, delivered by Tim Russert or someone like him, about what their favorite Bible verse is, or whom they want to win the Super Bowl, or what kind of beer they like. "Aha!" the reporters will shout, as though they actually unearthed something revealing on which the race for the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth should be decided. The one whose tiny little mind devised the question will be praised to the stars for his journalistic acumen.

In Russert's "democracy," Meet the Press is supreme. Forget the nuances of policy, forget serious debate. What Russert would prefer, it would seem, would be for the candidates -- the presidential ones, for example -- to come on his show, face his "tough" questioning, his "gotcha" attempts, and stand aside while his fellow insiders, David Broder and his ilk, sit around the table and chit-chat in turn, one after the other, round and round, offering their snide remarks and shallow commentary, stewing happily in the permanent glory of their oh-so-telegenic, oh-so-brilliant selves, self-important to the end.

And then the voters -- you know, those beer-swilling football fans in Buffalo -- could select a candidate based not so much on how he or she performed for their host but rather on how his or her performance was judged by the telegenic and brilliant ones, the self-appointed (or Russert-appointed) arbiters of American politics.

And then: Go Bills! Just to seem oh-so-democratic, oh-so-in-touch with the people, those not privileged enough to live inside the Beltway, let alone to attend Georgetown cocktail parties.

You know, people like us.

**********

This overt dislike of Tim Russert is new to me, more or less. I never minded him -- but then I never paid him much attention. I watch football on Sunday, not Meet the Press, figuring I'll get the highlights, whatever they are, later on. But, aside from that, he was, to me, relatively okay. And by that I mean he was (and still is) better than most of his colleagues. Say, the insufferable Chris Matthews, or anyone on Fox News.

But it is precisely Russert's importance, his lofty status atop the establishment, that makes him worthy of such criticism. In the end, who cares about Chris Matthews? Even about Fox News? -- we all know its ideological bent. But Russert, well, he's a self-styled man of the people without a clear ideological agenda, an insider who asserts neutrality and who has positioned himself as one of Washington's most important and influential figures. That position, combined with his media persona, has permitted him to wield enormous power over American politics, and to do so unaccountably. He will not have the final say over who wins the White House next year -- thankfully, there are still elections -- but he will certainly do his best, however much he may deny it, to influence the process. And hence the outcome.

And you'll be able to catch it on Meet the Press.

Me? -- I'll be busy.