How to Talk About The Dead
by KevinJune 16th, 2008
I have gotten myself in hot water over this before, but I still think it an important enough topic to risk more flames.
Tim Russert’s death is a tragedy. Anytime that young is taken from his friends and family, that is an undeniable tragedy. And, from all accounts, on a personal level, Russert was apparently a kind, polite, and generous man. The testimonials and eulogies all speak to that. Bu they all say something that is not true: he was a journalist other journalists should aspire to emulate. We can go through the record if you would like, but it is really secondary to the point. Just for he sake of argument, accept my notion that Russert was poor at his job. Saying that, though, seems to anger some people. I have been told that such criticisms are not appropriate. But I don’t see why not, for people who lived a public life, criticism of that public life should be out of bounds.*
The effect a person had on the public is, to me, an essential topic of discussion. It is important to understand public figures, the successes they had and the failures they suffered in order to help understand what is good and bad for the public. The good and the bad have to be discussed at a time when the pub;lic is payoing attention. You don’t want the lasting impression of Russert’s professional life to be one of success. If it is, then you create a situation in which young reporters and the public at large are convinced that “gotcha” questioning and holding every conversation unless specified otherwise off the record are high journalistic standards. If the criticism are forced to the side for the length of the public discussion of a man;s public life, then the criticism are not heard and misinformation is allowed to be presented as the truth. That is not good for the public at large.
I understand the desire to be nice to the recently passed, for the sake of their grieving friends and family if nothing else. But I don’t see why that consideration is more important than a respectful attempt to get at the truth of a person’s public life.
*I should say here that I am not talking about wakes or funerals or what is said or done there. I am not on the right wing — I do not have a set of politically correct guidelines for what a wake/memorial/funeral should look like. Those events are for the loved ones of the deceased, they can celebrate the deceased’s life in anyway they fit and God damn anyone who would take that comfort away from grieving people.
This may well be my personal bias due to the appalling damage that I see theism do to our culture, but I think this is just another instance of religion’s sacrosanct status yet again trumping any matters of reality. Everyone agrees that death is the last bastion of the superstitious and supernatural, and as a result grant to public discourse, and even require of it, the same immunity to counter-factuality as is granted to eulogies.
In this courntry, mojo and spirits are always more important than facts and consequences.
Kevin, if you were so concerned about the truth of Russert’s life, you could have written a piece about him the day before he died. Or the week before he died. By doing so, there would even have been a microscopic chance that you could influence him and make him a better journalist. But to wait until the very day that 1) your criticism will have no impact on his future actions and 2) he is singularly unavailable to defend himself against your piece, well perhaps you can see how that comes across as less than honorable.
So why not give it a rest, allow those that are grieving a period to do so without having to hear your very important analysis on why KO was not a good journalist, and then, six months from now, as the full impact of his favorable eulogies starts to ripple across the land and journalism is being crippled to the core because of it, you can publish your seminal work and save everyone from destruction.
It’s a win-win situation.
Ted
No, it doesn’t work like that. Plenty of people - -myself included - -have written critiques of Russert’s work. none of which are being mentioned in the coverage of his death. Instead, a myth of Russert and his work is being allowed to be built up and then held up to the public as a good thing, the thing we should aspire to. This is, in short, how bs is allowed to be mainstreamed becasue one must not speak ill of the dead.
This has thing to do with respect or allowing Russert to defend himself — all you see on TV are Russert’s defenders. If his defenders are going to take the moment of his death to do anything other than say “he was a good man and I will miss him”, if they wish to push their opinion of him and his owrk under the cover of a eulogy, then I am not sure why critics are just supposed to allow them to establish their myth as the truth.
I am not sure when allowing lies to become entrenched was an honorable thing to do.
I agree with Kevin here, but it’s not uncommon for me to be called an insensitive prick. I think the key statement from Kevin’s original post is this:
The good and the bad have to be discussed at a time when the public is payoing attention.
If fulfilling Kevin’s end of the bargain labels him as an insensitive prick because it is in contradiction with prevailing social convention (that is unintentionally tantamount to a call for censorship), then so be it.
I’m sure that if and when we “smoke out” Osama and fill him with more holes than Pac’s black 745i on the Vegas Strip, you’ll all advocate biting our tongues out of respect while the jihadists canonize their valiant martyr…
Well diss, if Kevin happens to meet an intimely death, I expect you to mark the occasion by wriing a piece here exposing all his faults as a blogger. Preferably on the day of his death or the day after. We must be vigilant againt any myths of perfection gaining a foothold.
As for Bin Laden, I think a simple summary of his life would be adequate on the day of his death. Truth be told, we really don’t know many details.
And since you go for the spots analogies, when Manny stops being Manny, do you think it will be appropriate for his highlight reel to include mostly strikeouts and flyouts? After all, if we are being honest, he did fail 70% of the time as an offensive player.
Kevin, as to Russert’s work being something we should aspire to, I’ll say this. If everyone in the world had the same basic traits as Tim Russert, the would would be a considerably better place (if a bit more boring). The dude had to balance all the parameters that other interviews did, and for th most part he did a better job than the competition. And you know you ould trade places with him in a heartbeat. Well, maybe not now, but you know what I mean.
I wouldn’t respond to Kevin’s hypothetical untimely death by roasting him. One, because I like him as blogger. Two, because I have the opportunity to confront him here everyday, which sometimes I do. However, if Morris wanted to say something like “RIP you baby-killing liar” – hey, fuck it, that’s his right. I’m not going to go react to it any differently than I did the day before when Mo did it while Kevin was alive. In a past thread, I already gave anybody permission to piss on my grave should they so choose – so I can’t balk at some written criticism.
Re: Manny, I’m not sure I follow. When he’s inducted to HOF, there will be indeed montages of him hitting bombs because he was one of the best RH hitters of all time. There will also be plenty of clips of him rubbing Julian Tavarez’s head, slapping fans five in B-More while turning two, disappearing into the Monster during pitching changes, and mysteriously diving to cut off throws from Coco Crisp(?). Furthermore, if on Baseball Tonight, some talking head wants to temper the praising of Manny by pointing out his shortcomings in the field or as a baserunner – I’m not going to write an angry letter to ESPN or anything. Oh, and it’s more like 60% failure, not 70; OBP > AVG.
I’ll go against type and say something good about the dead for once.
I certainly agree that Russert deserves criticism for the brand of shallow and dysfunctional journalism he popularized. He was not the worst of that bunch, but in a way that’s even worse; nobody imagines O’Reilly is functioning in any professional capacity with his rants and stupidity; but by putting a seemingly-serious face on equally inane and superficial noise, in the presence of substantive and important guests whom he utterly fails to call to account, Russert smuggles tabloid journalism into the supposedly professional ranks. But at least he wasn’t malicious, and he managed to be smarmy without being offensive, which the more rabid right-wingers did not. He was sincere, and he did the best he could.
And he was held in much regard in a certain branch of my family. My uncle shares American Legion Post membership with “Big Timmy” - Russert’s dad, about whom he wrote his book. My uncle knew “Little Timmy” casually, and through Big Tim was able to ask a favor when my cousin was looking for work. Tim Russert set my smart and charming cousin up with a job in the NBC video library while she was in college - a job she holds to this day - and they were all grateful to him for that ever after.
So, thanks, Tim. And so long.
KTK,
So, Russert denigrated and undermined journalism, he helped usher in a dysfunctional, counterproductive breed of pseudo-news personality. But, he was basically well-intentioned. (Seems like the only way these two contentions coexist is if he was unaware of what he was doing, and thus, a buffoon). But, he hooked your cousin up with a nine to five, so you’ll basically give him a pass…
If I may ask, who are you and what have you done with the real KTK? Seriously, how would you react if I was like, “Ya know, once I was over on the side of the highway, and Ronald Reagan passed by. He loaned me a jack so I could change my flat tire - that dude is aight!”?
I know you didn’t say you specifically hold him in such high regard - “a certain branch of my family” may or may not include you - but the tone of the post kinda seemed to implied that him getting your cuz a job gets him off the hook for paragraph one. Even if willingness to engage in favoritism that benefits me and lack of journalistic integrity were related in any manner that might allow the former to make up for the latter, it still shouldn’t.
That’s my two cents.
Ted -
if Kevin happens to meet an intimely death, I expect you to mark the occasion by wriing a piece here exposing all his faults as a blogger
If everyone else was declaring he was the absolute ideal of bloggerism to which everyone else should and must aspire, that would probably be a good idea.
when Manny stops being Manny, do you think it will be appropriate for his highlight reel to include mostly strikeouts and flyouts
If everyone else is coming on like he got on base at every at-bat, that, too, would probably be a good idea.
For a somewhat different perspective on Russert, read this.
I’m going to have to throw my hat in with Kevin here. On the one hand, I don’t think you should go out of your way to be a jerk when talking about the dead, and I even tend to agree that you should go out of your way to be nice and do a little bit of sugar-coating. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s right to pretend the recently-departed was anything other than what they actually were. I don’t think it does anyone a service — not even the deceased — to whitewash the deceased’s legacy.
And in that spirit, allow me to offer my take on Willie Randolph’s managerial tenure in the wake of it’s death…
Actually, all I’ll say is, you could argue he did or did not deserve to be fired, but he sure was done dirty.
digglahh:
Great . . . so now I have to go piss on Russert’s grave also? Between him and recent unlamented Republicans, I’m going to wind up dehydrated.
I just meant he’d done a favor for someone I care about, and deserves my gratitude for that, whatever else he deserves. As for his sins, such as they were, they are serious, but remember that he was a commentator, not a direct actor. It’s vital that we know the truth about what the crooks and criminals in the Bush administration are doing, but talk shows are not the most important link in that respect. You can find good information if you look for it, and it’s not really the press’s job to catch crooks anyway. It’s the crooks’ job not to be crooks, and they are the ones who deserve the blame for what they’ve done, not the reporters, however docile, who watch them do it. So I’m disappointed at Russert for being lame and complaisant, and I’m angry at O’Reilly for being a fellow-traveler, but neither of them is the direct source of the problem.
Not actively catching the crooks is one thing - not confirming alibis, aiding, abetting, testifying as a character witness in defense of the criminal, reaping the benefits of the crime, etc. are others.
Frankly, I’m shocked to hear you make the argument you just did.
I understand giving offering your gratitude on a personal level; that’s a separate issue But, if it’s not part of the press’s job to ensure our news isn’t simply an unscrutinized regurgitation of talking points provided by its subject - then what is the job of the press? (Other than putting vandalism of Hummers in DC into the correct environmental and sociopolitcal context. :))
I don’t think you really believe what you just wrote - it seems so at odds with who you are.
OK, let me ask this. Since Russert was so bad at what he did, please provide a short list of television interviewers that will not deserve to be criticized on the day they die.
And if someone is grouping Russert and O’Reilly together, well, that’s just silly.
LarryE, I don’t think too many people have been saying he was perfect. Most have been saying he was better than most. Which I completely agree with. I suppose if you could do better, and be popular (in other words keep your show) and not offend your guests too much (in other words maintain an A level guest list) and not piss off the sponsers (in other words generate the cash required to run your show), and maintain a level of neutrality over several decades such that your audience has no idea what your political ideology is, well then I guess you would be a standard to which Russert could be compared. I don’t see anyone out there that is doing that.
LarryE seems to take the position that critisism is only called for if the praise is untrue. I think Kevin believes the critisism is due regardless of the praise. Is that accurate?
Dang - I was composing that with one hand and was about to go back and clean it up before I submitted it. My spell checker somehow submitted it for me. Kevin, if you can just delete it I would appreciate it.
Most have been saying he was better than most.
No, that has not been the prevailing sentiment; it has rather been - and I heard it said in so many words - that he represented what all other journalist should aspire to. In the hagiography being constructed for Tim Russert, “better than most” would be seen as damning with faint praise.
LarryE seems to take the position that critisism is only called for if the praise is untrue.
I said no such thing. I said in opposition to your arguing by extremes comment that criticism is a sound corrective when the praise is over the top and/or comes off like the flaws did not exist.
please provide a short list of television interviewers that will not deserve to be criticized on the day they die.
The ones who don’t deserve to be criticized now, while they live. And the only ones who deserve nothing but contempt when they die are the ones who deserve nothing but contempt now, while they live.
I understand why it’s bad form to over-emphasize the negative after someone dies, but I don’t see why it’s not also bad form to completely whitewash someone. What in heaven’s name is wrong with being honest about someone’s legacy? That doesn’t mean you have to be nasty about it, and as I said before, a little sugar coating may even be in order, by why do we feel this need to pretend that people were something that they were not? Why is there no room for any middle ground?
If someone we like dies and people vilify that guy and define him solely by his bad deeds, it’s an outrage. But when someone dies and people deify him despite his imperfections, and they sweep all of his imperfections under the carpet, as if they never existed, that’s somehow okay? I don’t get it. And perhaps I never will.
OK guys, if you note my #15, you will see that my last comment went off half-baked, so I don’t understand why you are responding to it, but, since you have… Tgirsch, I ask again, who is on the list of interviewers who don’t deserve criticism? I am interested in the length of the list, not the actual entries. I expect the length will be zero. And have you, to date, criticized all the rest? Or is the need to criticize only triggered by death?
I believe eulogies are ephemeral. An almost non-existant part of the historical record. Pick a public figure. Hitler or JFK or Babe Ruth or Lincoln. Is your opinion of that person influenced, in any way, by words that were said upon their death? I doubt it. Is the course of journalism going to be altered based on eulogies to Tim Russert? I don’t think so. Give the guy (and his friends and fans) a couple of weeks of peace and then go forth and do what you need to do to ensure journalism is improved by his passing. That’s my take.
I’m not TG, but since I’m on his side, I’ll take a crack at replying.
Is my opinion of the deceased influenced by the words spoken upon his/her death?
- Depends how much I knew about him/her while alive. If you didn’t know anything about Tim Russert, you now know he was cat’s pajamas (I’m not just hip hop, I can take it to the old school.)
Who doesn’t deserve criticism while living?
- That’s an individual thing, no? Maybe I don’t think Russert deserved to be nailed, but if you do, I’m not gonna torch you for going for it.
Is the need for criticism triggered by death?
- Not per se, but it is one time when commenting on that person would be particularly relevant, as opposed to other times when a person may choose to address a more timely issue. Would a shot outta left field be any more “dignified?”
Is the course of journalism going to be altered based on eulogies to Tim Russert?
Happily, what for a moment threatened to turn into a heated argument has instead settled into a calm disagreement.
So just by way of clarification, I think the concern isn’t that what’s said about Russert will “alter the course of journalism” but rather that what is said about him reflects the present state of journalism and so his his flaws and failings - such as being a font of conventional wisdom and having a preference for gotcha questions as opposed to substantive addressing of issues - reflect that state as much as any positive attributes he had.
And after all, to use one of your examples, if upon Hitler’s death the general response among his peers (i.e., national leaders) had consisted of “he lead Germany out of recession, he gave Germans back their self-respect, etc.,” wouldn’t you have felt the pull of “Uh, wait a minute…?”
One last thing: If Russert is going to be criticized, it has to be now, when his life and work are being actively discussed. If you wait those “couple of weeks” and then do it, you’ll get dismissed with “Oh, yeah, sure, now that he’s no longer here to defend himself.”
Ted
Do you still want that one comment removed?
If you are going to talk about a person’s legacy at the time of their death then you must discuss that legacy as honestly as you can. Anything else does a disservice to the discussion. I don’t see anyway around that.
No, I don’t care. I’m not too invested in all of this. I reread your original psot and I don’t have much issue with it. I think I was channeling KTK’s WFB post as I was reading yours.
Yeah, KTK can leave a bit of scarring on the psyche. Fortunately, I’m all for body-mod.