Such a question is neither “trickery” nor “sensationalism.” It puts a flawed policy to the test of logic.

And, I vigorously reject the implied claim that an interviewer should “appreciate” a member of the government during an interview. A journalist should not be a fan, and certainly not a “pal,” of the person he is interviewing if the interviewee is responsible for government policy. The sorry history of the last 7 years is more proof of that than one could ever want.

The key attitudes towards a government interviewee should be skepticism and a distate for evasion and misdirection. Neither is incompatible with honesty or even courtesy if the evaded question is repeated calmly and quietly.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but the following query remains unanswered:

Please tell me if Mr. Russert ever asked Dick Cheney or any senior Bush official the following question and insisted on a direct answer:

The Administration was advised that “torture” is conduct causing death or failure of a major organ. If I hit your hand repeatedly with a hammer to extract information, would that be torture? And if it would, do you disavow the torture memorandum’s definition?

I would argue that Tim’s ability to be endeared by so many people (particularly cynical New Yorkers) is what made him a great interviewer. If he didn’t ask the hard questions the outpouring of respect for him would be severely lesser. Perhaps those who make the claim that he wasn’t tough enough are confused by an interviewing style founded on honesty and appreciation; not made on trickery or sensationalism that is, sadly, the common practice of so many others today. If you are in that number I would point you towards this obituary which better describes his technique and legacy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2144437/Tim-Russert.html

“However, most of them still spin when they want to.”

I’m not surprised. But the job of a journalist is to demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes, not to force him to get dressed. It’s up to the electorate to decide if a naked emperor is acceptable.

his or her back

They have a model, in English, for insisting that politicians give direct factual answers to direct questions, or at least say “I don’t know” or “I refuse to anwser” instead of lapping up spin and out and out BS like a cat laps up cream.

US broadcast “journalists” simply do not have the guts, or have been neutered by their employers.

At the very least, every Sunday interview show should be preceeded by a diclaimer containing a Paxman clip with subtitle “What you are now watching is a real example of a member of the press challenging the government; what will follow is a supine employee of our network lying on his or back before a politician.”

It illustrates perfectly how UK TV journalists are altogether far less deferential towards senior politicians, in my view, than their US counterparts. I make no judgment whether or not this is a good thing, but it sure does make good TV

The Administration was advised that “torture” is conduct causing death or failure of a major organ. If I hit your hand repeatedly with a hammer to extract information, would that be torture? And if it would, do you disavow the torture memorandum’s definition?

Oh, for the record, to correct errors in Post #1:

Correction 1:To use a traditional phrase for Mr. Russert, Zichron l’vracha,may his memory be for a blessing.

Correction 2:
he didn’t “go in for the kill,”