Search:

As bad as I hate to admit it, I found myself agreeing with Orlando Sentinel TV critic/columnist Hal Boedeker about the coverage of Tim Russert’s death.

And I’ll preface the remainder of this column by saying that I adored Tim Russert. He was my favorite. I was on the telephone when News-Times Weekend Editor Rod Harrington handed me a note saying he had died. Tears rolled. All I could think about was that it was Father’s Day weekend and how sad it would be for his family, especially his son, Luke, and father, Big Russ.

I turned to Russert and the MSNBC gang on election nights, watched Meet the Press and enjoyed his guest appearances on Don Imus’ morning show before the I-Man was booted from his televised morning spot. His books, “Big Russ and Me” and “Wisdom of Our Fathers,” are great works.

The night of Russert’s death, June 13, I found myself glued to the TV. That was after I came home from work, where we had watched coverage on various channels.

It occurred to me then that it was a bit much. It was interesting to me because he was one of the greats of my field, but after 30 minutes or so, David was ready to move on.

Coverage continued over the weekend. I happened upon Boedeker’s blog Monday morning.

“Here’s one thing you can say about journalists: Surely no one loves us as much as we love ourselves.

“That’s one lesson of the Tim Russert coverage.

“A friend told me Sunday: ‘I now know more about Tim Russert than I do many members of my family.’

“After Russert’s shocking death Friday at age 58, television kept serving up witnesses to his expertise, intelligence, diligence, kindness, faith, love of family, Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills. The self-indulgence was breathtaking.

“On Monday’s ‘Today,’ Matt Lauer interviewed Russert’s son, Luke. The show basically gave over the first half-hour to the Russert story. Presidential candidates aren’t questioned at such length on morning programs.

“And the children of America’s fallen heroes don’t receive such a platform, either.”

He makes a good point.

Much of what I watched Friday night had been said earlier in the day. Throughout the weekend, journalists, those on MSNBC in particular, used their television medium to work through their grief. Sure, I understand it. I felt their pain, but the extent to which it was covered wasn’t appropriate.

Other news icons have passed and received scant coverage in comparison. In fact, other NEWSMAKERS – the people it is the job of journalists to cover – have died and received less coverage. And what about other news going on in the world? If you were watching MSNBC, you missed a lot of it.

Boedeker posed a few relevant questions in his column:

“Do the hours of coverage inflate the story? Tim Russert was excellent at his job, make no mistake. He worked hard, he treated his guests fairly, and he asked tough questions. But by weekend’s end, some commentators had elevated him to preeminent journalist of his time. And one reader wrote: ‘His was the most noteworthy and untimely public death in the past 20 years.’

“Really? Beware hyperbole.

“Is the coverage professional? A lot of the comments about Russert should have been saved for the office. NBC should have approached covering Russert as the network would have any other public figure who had died. Hard to do, yes, but that should have been the goal.”

Boedeker ended his comments with the following:

“The affection that Russert stirred in millions was testament to his skill. But the coverage of his death was often overblown, self-congratulatory and self-indulgent. It was no way to treat a news icon.”

Indeed.

I can’t help but think that if Russert could’ve kicked back and watched the coverage of his passing, he would’ve been humbled and truly touched, but he might have been a tad embarrassed that it went on as long as it did. Typically, journalists have the attitude that we break the news, not make the news. MSNBC forgot that.



(Shea Hutchens Wilson writes from El Dorado. E-mail her at shwilson@eldoradonews.com.)