Four days later, there seems to be a backlash against the excessive praising of Tim Russert that has dominated the news media for several days. Jason points me to this column on Slate as a good example.

Enh. I can't say I've been at all bothered by it. I hear that the cable news stations have been all Russert for hours on end. But I wouldn't know, since I don't actually watch cable news for hours on end (not even close). Nor do I check in several times a day to notice that they're still at it.

Ultimately, I don't find this any more shocking than when the cable news stations binge on the O.J. trial, or Britney Spears' rehab, or Paris Hilton's week in jail. Russert is no different. He gets coverage because he's a celebrity recognized by a large audience. That he's a celebrity among social classes that consider themselves superior to those who are more familiar with Paris and Britney does not impress me as a significant distinction.

Do I think it's stupid that the news media binged on Russert all weekend? Well, sure ... but I pretty much always think the news is stupid.

Now that a decent interval has passed, I can link the the article I alluded to on Friday. That's Matthew Yglesias, writing in December 2007. If you follow the link and read, you can draw your own conclusion. For those who don't care to: The general gist is that Russert's interviewing style on Meet the Press is stupid and represents what's wrong with political journalism today. I quite agree.

Months ago, I read a serious analysis of the dynamics and economics of the news business. (Alas, I don't remember where.) Among the observations was that a TV journalist's career success is strongly correlated to how well-known he is to the audience, which in turn is strongly correlated to how much face time he gets. When you watch an interview on TV, if most of what you see are is person being interviewed, you won't remember the journalist so much. If more of your time is devoted to watching and hearing the interviewer talk, he'll be more recognizable next time. The latter probably does not make for a better interview, but it does make for a better chance of the journalist getting more gigs.

Quite likely, some ambitious journalists are well aware of this and they make a concerted effort to maximize their face time in furtherance of their careers. But even if they don't do it on purpose, the result is the same. If some journalists tend to hog the screen just by natural inclination, those hogs are going to become better-known; that will get them more gigs, which will make them even more well-known, driving out the meeker journalists who prefer to let the interviewee do most of the talking.

This is why we have a news media full of obnoxious TV journalists who hound their guests with stupid and unanswerable "gotcha" questions. This is why, on the rare occasion that a guest actually tries to explain something with more than one sentence, the interviewer loudly interrupts, "Stop dodging the question, Senator. Give me an answer, yes or no!" This interruption is essential to the interviewer's viability as a journalist. Without it, the camera might stay off him for more than ten precious seconds.

With that in mind, I want to make a deal with the journalists: Let's agree that from now on the TV cameras will always be pointed at the guy who isn't talking. I realize that's stupid. Obviously, I'd rather see the facial expression of the person who is saying something. But if that's the price we have to pay to get journalists to shut the hell up and let the guest talk, it would be worth it.

11:21:22 PM  [permalink]  comment []