Matt Yglesias rightly criticizes Tim Russert’s ‘gotcha’ journalism as tough, but often pointless and socially damaging. He’s right. One of the main reasons I avoid Russert’s show is that it’s a waste (if a popular one, but then so is Fox News, and I don’t waste my time there either). But I think Russert’s attraction to other journalists, and to some extent his success, is because he is the logical extreme of “objective” journalism - which advocates neutrality while still seeking an audience. Tim Russert has simply taken the ‘neutrality’ and moved it into the realm of social content - nothing is too obscure or pointless, as long as it is embarrassing (aka what passes for “tough”). He is simply a good practitioner and heir (or is that hair) of other sensationalists before him.
Matt’s take is understandably consistent. He has his criticisms of “objective” reporting too - and recognizes his efforts as not objective (see 3rd paragraph), but as attempts at honesty through a particular political perspective. If you know where someone stands, left or right, you can learn from them if they’ve got something worth saying - which is why I read Matt.
Post a Comment