A unified theory of Russert

There's a strange fight going on in the progressive blogosphere over the behavior of Tim Russert.

Matthew Yglesias offered an essentially non-partisan critique of Russert's "gotcha" style that was endorsed by Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein.

The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby, who previously suggested that Russert had a partisan animus, then declared "It’s time to give up on Kevin and Matt and all the Good Boys of the Village suburbs." The reason? They failed to detect what Somerby considered to be Russert's disproportionately harsh treatment of Democrats, which he suggested was the result of partisan bias. (He made this suggestion again today.)

I actually agree with Somerby that Russert tends to be more aggressive in his questioning of Democrats. (Anyone remember his interview of Howard Dean during the last presidential campaign?) The problem, however, is that we can't know Russert's motives. More importantly, it is strange to assume that the ex-Democratic operative is wants to embarrass Democrats for partisan reasons.

There's a simpler explanation that seems more persuasive. Like most journalists, Russert is far more sensitive to the approval of his peers than to the opinion of the general public (they're a lot like academics). So how do you win acclaim for being a tough journalist? First, you grill your subjects on alleged inconsistencies and constantly try to throw them off message (his signature style). But you must also fend off any suggestion of liberal bias, a charge that could be especially potent for Russert given his history as a Democratic operative. As a result, it makes perfect sense for him to go overboard in grilling Democrats and to treat Republicans less harshly. There's no reason to think it has anything to do with partisan animus.

Update 11/15 10:20 AM: Yglesias wrote a new post last night clarifying his views:

[T]hough I don't really want to speculate as to Russert's motives, I think the impact of his methods is pretty unambiguously bad for Democrats. It's not a "partisan issue" in the sense that one could, in principle, be both a member of the Republican Party and also be a politician whose career would benefit from participating in a serious discussion of important issues, but in practice the whole ludicrous enterprise is a boon to the Party of Flim-Flam.

Comments

[Crust]

Uh Brendan, go back and read Somerby again.

Your first paraphrase of Somerby was accurate when you referred to "what [Somerby] considers Russert's disproportionately harsh treatment of Democrats". Note no mention of motives. That is virtually indistinguishable from your own view that "Russert tends to be more aggressive in his questioning of Democrats."

But after initially getting Somerby right, you go off the rails and backfill into your previous statement that Somerby is somehow pretending to see inside Russert's head and know his true motivations. He's not.

In other words, you're in more or less perfect agreement with Somerby on this. Which is great. But there's no need to pretend you disagree.

[Brendan Nyhan]

That's not true -- Somerby has repeatedly suggested Russert has a "partisan animus."

Somerby 11/02/07:

[M]any career players on the liberal web still can’t bring themselves to advance the thought that the two big guns who were hired by Welch may have some sort of partisan animus. The thought doesn’t enter Waldman’s head...

In our view, Russert, Matthews and Williams have long been a partisan wrecking crew.

Somerby 11/12/07:

Let’s be plain: It’s virtually impossible to quantify the “partisanship” of someone like Russert. That said: At this point, it’s astounding when liberals go out of their way to say that Russert treats Republicans the same way he treats Democrats.

...Does Russert treat the two parties the same? It’s hard to prove a claim of this type—but it’s astounding to see liberal leaders act as though they don’t even know that such a question exists. But Matt and Kevin join Paul Waldman in this see-no-evil posture. All three have criticized Russert in recent weeks—without even seeming to know that a question of partisan animus exists.

Somerby 11/14/07:

Even Ferraro fails to suggest what has been clear for a very long time: Russert, and the rest of Jack Welch’s Lost Boys, have a plain partisan animus.