TV News in the Post-Russert Era
We should mourn the tragic loss of Tim Russert — but not the inevitable loss of network news.
Just as the song “American Pie” marks the untimely death of rocker Buddy Holly as the day the music died, Tim Russert’s passing will be the day network news died. A long, long time ago… I can still remember when that news used to bring us together. When CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite ended his broadcasts “that’s the way it is,” we believed him. But that was before cable TV, talk radio, and the Internet later made us realize we were only hearing one side of the story – that Cronkite really meant
“that’s the way it is according to the Beltway establishment.”
We began to lose faith in the network anchors, but then, along came Tim Russert to unite us. He served as network TV’s cheerful honest broker – a man with the rare ability to win the admiration of the Beltway, the Left, and the Right all at the same time.
Now that he is gone, there is no one to replace him who is trusted by all. The selection of dino-anchor Tom Brokaw as a fill-in is a step backward that proves the point. Network news will not survive.
We should mourn the loss of Tim Russert, a very fine man, but not the loss of network news. From the very beginning, there was always something a bit “un-American” about it — and America will be better without it.
The problem with network news is that it is a child of broadcasting, which previous generations hopelessly ruined for the rest of us. Prior to broadcasting, America got all its news from newspapers, which everyone understood from the First Amendment could not be controlled or manipulated by government. But with the introduction of broadcasting, no one seemed to notice that government control of the broadcast spectrum was equivalent to government control of printing presses. Under the lame — and demonstrably false — excuse that the broadcast spectrum only had the capacity for a limited number of channels, the government set up the FCC, headed by political appointees to ensure broadcast frequencies were only assigned to media companies that supported what the government viewed as the “public good.”
CBS founder William Paley, recognizing how valuable broadcast licenses were for entertainment programming, wanted to make sure the FCC always thought that his network supported the public good. So, he invented network TV news. It would flatter the federal government by focusing on their activities and showing them in a favorable light. Paley did not even care if his news made money — decades would pass before CBS News
turned its first profit.
This idea of a friendly news-government relationship is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted an adversarial relationship between the press and the government. The country’s founding premise was that the public must continually protect itself from governments’ natural inclination to encroach on their individual rights. Jefferson wanted newspapers to serve as a “fence” to stop this encroachment and encouraged them to engage in a process of “attack and defense” with government. In fact, he established a newspaper with James Madison to bloody-up Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists during Washington’s administration.
You didn’t notice that network news deliberately tries to be friendly to politicians? Just compare network to cable news coverage. Cable TV requires no broadcast licenses from the federal government – there’s no need for these channels to keep FCC political appointees happy. Note how much hotter the political talk is on cable vs. broadcast news. On cable, you find politician-attackers like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. On broadcast, you find suck-ups like Brian Williams and Katie Couric.
And on broadcast, you also found Tim Russert. Yes, he was a fine man, who was sincere and worked hard for his employer. But he was also a figure who never challenged the all-too-friendly relationship between the political establishment and broadcasters. In fact, he built a reputation upon it. During the Scooter Libby trial, Russert testified under oath that all his conversations with government officials were presumed to be confidential, and he never reported anything unless given explicit permission in advance. This is quite far from Jefferson’s ideal of an adversarial relationship between the press and the government — and also quite removed from our image of a dogged press that fights to protect the public.
Russert’s problem, network news’ problem, and every other news outlet’s problem is that the premise of network news is simply wrong — it is impossible to present a single version of the news and have it be the “correct” one. There are an infinite number of possible news stories and angles, and every choice tends to place a person or cause on the defensive. Jefferson knew this, and the only way he thought we could get to the truth was by newspapers offering a multitude of voices competing in a freewheeling marketplace of ideas. This is completely consistent with the concept of our nation’s founding – individuals should have maximum free expression, with consent of the governed determined by debate. Many voices and debate is what we had before our cities became one-newspaper towns, and it is still what Londoners have today with their collection of partisan newspapers.
But network news’ sin is even deeper than that – the single set of stories they offer are the choice of the government establishment. Once new media exposed us to alternative voices, it was inevitable that those on the Left would think that this Beltway voice was too far to the Right, while those on the Right would think it skewed Left. Now there is no Tim Russert to smooth over our differences.
So, bye-bye CBS Network eye. This may be the day network news dies, but don’t despair. Hearing alternative views is as American as apple pie.
Steve Boriss teaches the class "The Future of News" at Washington University in St. Louis, blogs at at TheFutureofNews.com, and offers services through The Future of News, Inc. to help news organizations, corporations, and agencies succeed in the emerging news environment.
![]() |
![]() |
Podcasts | PJM Home |





PJM Home


Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. Angela:Unfortunately much of the general public does not want to hear alternative views of anything. I wonder what is really going to happen to the news and journalism in particular as people now trend towards shows and publications that cater to only views that they already adhere to. When Newspapers and publications openly endorse candidates how can you be assured of baised reporting (you can’t, look at the ‘opinion pieces). The same can be said for the cable news shows and internet blogs. I’m afraid designer news is here to stay, God help us all.
Jun 24, 2008 - 7:26 am 2. AJ:Good piece, Steve. Very insighful, and most importantly, accurate. It’s good to know our young collegians have someone like you instructing them rather than the typical lying, ignorant leftists.
Jun 24, 2008 - 8:11 am 3. Jimmy:Mr. Boriss is absolutely correct. Where Mr. Russert was a decent and fair man, he still represented the collusion between the power in Washington and the network media. I think he is incorrect though when it comes to the “alternative” media.
Politicians know the power of media and they will infiltrate even the most independent news outlets, attempting to position their agenda over the others’. Politicians are too slimy not manipulate the media; it’s too effective.
Jun 24, 2008 - 11:23 am 4. always right:…the single set of stories they (network news) offer are the choice of the government establishment.
I am sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Try growing up in a real dictatorial state (I did), then you will know what it truly means by ‘govenment controlled media’. Or meida needs to stay in the governemnt’s good grace.
You didn’t notice that network news deliberately tries to be friendly to politicians?
Have you seen actual coverage of the WH news corp lately? A funny way for Helen Thomas, or that Greg some guy, or any other WH correspondent to show their friendliness.
Hearing alternative views is as American as apple pie.
Jun 24, 2008 - 11:44 am 5. Lem:Everybody would like to think himself most open-minded. But having alternative views actually narrowed down what people will truly hear.
On his last broadcast Obama’s name was mentioned 86 times compared to McCain’s 39.
An Obamination.
Jun 24, 2008 - 2:25 pm 6. Tim Russert: The Day Network News Died « The Future of News:[...] News Died 6/24/08 Posted by Steve Boriss in NetworkNews, TimRussert. trackback This week at Pajamas Media, I suggest that just as the song “American Pie” marked the untimely death of rocker Buddy Holly [...]
Jun 24, 2008 - 5:45 pm 7. Jabba the Tutt:“Unfortunately much of the general public does not want to hear alternative views of anything.”
You’ve got to be kidding!! That may apply to the liberals, who slam liberalism down everyone’s throat with their control of newspapers, networks and the schools. The 80% of Americans, who are not liberals are dieing for some representation of their views.
Jun 25, 2008 - 6:41 am 8. Mark:“But network news’ sin is even deeper than that – the single set of stories they offer are the choice of the government establishment.”
Wow! I can’t say whether or not William Paley’s “invention” of the network news was motivated by the desire to be in government’s good graces. But even if that were so, one would be hard pressed to prove that it is true now.
Jun 25, 2008 - 9:58 am 9. bill force:Tim Russert was a TV news icon for sure, but his left leaning slant was present, even if it often was difficult to detect. The best example off the top of my head was the interview he did a while back with the head of the NRA. Russert was rude, impolite; totally lacked in common courtesy. Never in all his years did I see Tim treat a liberal guest with such utter contemptuousness. Regardless, I was one of Tim’s biggest fans because I believed that he genuinely attempted to be fair-handed. Trouble was, he cut his political teeth working for liberal politicians. And NBC is a cesspool of liberal bias.
Jun 25, 2008 - 11:44 pm 10. wesungreensp:Now, incidentally, some of those same people are now trying to stifle conservative speech with the reinstitution of the so called Fairness Doctrine. It’s what’s behind the no holds barred attempt to block the Sirius/XM merger. Today’s neolibs want to control as many forms of communication as possible. And the existence of conservative thought sticks in their craw like peanutbutter to the roof of your mouth. They can’t wait to get their hands on it; force radio stations to change their formats. And end the ratings driven domination that conservative talk radio has enjoyed over the years.
google no red greed stone vacant wood are
Jun 26, 2008 - 8:49 am 11. Keegy United States - TV News in the Post-Russert Era:[...] TV News in the Post-Russert Era [...]
Jun 26, 2008 - 11:01 am 12. M:I enjoyed Tim Russert’s interviews and commentaries immensely. He struck me as the Jackie Gleason of political journalists in terms of his stature, larger-than-life personality, and enormous charisma.
In contrast with the above poster, I never thought Russert was biased against conservatives. In fact, he struck me as very much of a social conservative (though in a very balanced and open-minded way….which seemed to account, at least in part, for his great charm and popularity).
I would certainly be curious to see his interview with the NRA president. One little known fact about Tim Russert is that his wife’s father (the late General Franklin Orth) was a high-ranking official in the NRA back in the 1960s. It seems likely that Russert learned quite a bit about the inner workings of the NRA from his wife, which he probably used to great effect in the interview noted above.
Aug 18, 2008 - 10:20 am 13. Mainstream Media Death Watch: Polls, TV News and AP Papers Going Rogue | DBKP - The Worldwide Leader in Weird:[...] The Future of TV News in the Post-Russert Era explains why TV network news will eventually go the way of the buggy whip. This idea of a friendly news-government relationship is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted an adversarial relationship between the press and the government. The country’s founding premise was that the public must continually protect itself from governments’ natural inclination to encroach on their individual rights. Jefferson wanted newspapers to serve as a “fence” to stop this encroachment and encouraged them to engage in a process of “attack and defense” with government. In fact, he established a newspaper with James Madison to bloody-up Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists during Washington’s administration. [...]
Oct 29, 2008 - 4:22 am