Meet the Press Host Was the Fair and Balanced Playmaker

We''ve said in this great race for the U.S. presidency that when it comes to strategy it''s the media that''s running the show.

Tim Russert, the Lion of political broadcast journalism, who passed away this week at the age of 58, was proof enough that the press -- mainstream, citizen journalists or otherwise -- are the most crucial playmakers in these games of influence and politics. Yes...Journalists run plays. They are evolved and formidable strategists and, in Russert''s case, a kind of kingmaker or executioner, depending on the outcome of his spin-killing interviews.

Russert was different, of course, as his many colleagues and once-grilled Meet the Press guests are remembering. His plays were based principally on research and, as such, were more middling on the spectrum of influence strategies. It was statistics and the public record that, as in volleyball, set the premise for his news-scoring sets and spikes.

Take, for example, Russert''s Dec. 9, 2007 interview of GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani. Reading from a fresh national intelligence estimate, Russert drummed out his facts to the pro-military 911 hero: "We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015." (The set). "Seeing that, hearing that, learning that...does''t this remove the option of a preemptive military strike against Iran?" (The spike.)

It was a combination play he ran on Da Mayor, specifically a Mirror to reflect back his premise and a Bait to lure and trap the dodging candidate.

By contrast, Russert''s counterparts are not so subtle. Think of ABC''s Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos who threw 45 minutes of taunting questions at Barack Obama in this year''s April 16 Democratic Primary Debate in Philadelphia. Their ploys were not so much driven by a penchant for good data as a need for good drama:

You don''t wear an American-flag lapel pin, one observed. How can voters be sure of your patriotism? Say, how ''bout that Rev. Wright? And what''s up with the bitter cling thing...?

Their play was a declaratory Fiat to set a premise. Their second was an erroneous Red Herring to befuddle Obama and send him off-script. The difference, of course, is that Russert''s strategies suggested a fair and balanced agenda, which leads us to the fair and balanced network...

Consider this play by FOX News anchor, Brit Hume, who on Feb. 18, 2007 volunteered his analysis on FOX News Sunday of the anti-Iraq war Congressman John Murtha:

"... it’s time a few things be said about him," said Hume. "Even The Washington Post noted he didn''t seem particularly well informed about what''s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cache among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world."

Hume''s play was also a two-parter. First, to build his case, he invoked The Washington Post, a Screen on a symbol of journalistic objectivity. Next, he ran an unvarnished Call Out to get his reporter''s opinion out.

And speaking of call outs, consider the moves of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews who in a Jan. 9, 2008 Morning Joe guest spot had a few things to say about another prominent Democrat:

"Let''s not forget," said the emphatic Matthews, "the reason [Hillary Clinton is] a U.S. Senator, the reason she''s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a frontrunner, is that her husband messed around."

No research. No data. No Mirror. No Screen. Just a blistering attacking play from the other side of the journalistic aisle.

These and others all know that Russert''s standards were different. So do the rest of us as we weigh the question of whether the man from Buffalo will leave a legacy for higher standards in reporting and playmaking, or just leave us to play lesser games.

Post by Alan Kelly