Edward R. Murrow to Tim Russert

The outpouring of grief over Tim Russert's untimely death today, at age 58, shows both the high esteem and affection that Americans hold for television journalists who protect our interests as untiring champions of the First Amendment.

When Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers made the press the crucial guardians of our government - the watchdogs whose job it was to report to the American people what their government was really up to - Jefferson must have the likes of Tim Russert, and his unceasing speaking of truth to power, in mind.

He was not only the moderator of Meet the Press since 1991 - by far the most memorable - but he was NBC News' Washington Bureau Chief. He was one of the few who spanned traditional network and cable news, with his CNBC/MSNBC interview show. And he made a great guest appearance on Homicide: Life On Street, playing himself as character Lt. Megan Russert's cousin.

There are less than a handful of television reporters and anchors who in their different ways defined their genre and their age. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite (who is still with us), and Tim Russert.

MSNBC Had Best Coverage of the Primary Campaigns

This is not a statistical analysis, but the impressions of one viewer - me - who happens to be a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City, and author of a whole bunch of books about the media.

I'm thinking MSNBC had far and away the best coverage of the primary campaigns - far better than its CNN and Fox competition.

Here's why:

1. Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Tim Russert commenting on the nights when the votes are counted: No other cable station or network has that kind of fire power - the current network news anchor (Williams), the previous network news anchor (Brokaw), and, just for good measure the host of Meet the Press (Russert). CNN and Fox have no parent network such as NBC to draw upon.

2. The coverage of MSNBC during the day is top-notch, even extraordinary. Andrea Mitchell interviews movers and shakers whenever she is on, which is often. (Her interview with Manhattan Congressman Charlie Rangel yesterday broke new ground in what was happening with Hillary Clinton, to give just one example.) Meanwhile, Nora O'Donnell and David Shuster, who also have shows on MSNBC during the day, are first-class political reporters. At best, CNN and Fox's day people may be as good as Contessa Brewer and Monica Novotny on MSNBC - but usually not.

3. Chuck Todd is outstanding as a political and statistical analyst on MSNBC. CNN makes a good showing with John King at the magic board, and Bill Schneider's political analysis - call that a draw, maybe. Frank Luntz on Fox is a distant third.

4. The prime-time lineups are about the most equal. Larry King on CNN is in a (good) class by himself. Britt Hume and Bill O'Reilly on Fox are certainly powerful commentators, and Hannity & Colmes are ok. (I'm not taking political positions here, just assessing power on television.) But Chris Matthews on MSNBC is right up there, too. And Keith Olbermann right after Matthews is an imposing presence, too. And for politics, David Gregory and Dan Abrams on MSNBC are a lot better than Greta Van Susteren on Fox, and, for my money, better than Anderson Cooper on CNN, one of its stars.

5. All three cable operations get good guests for regular political commentary. David Gergen on CNN is probably the best - adviser to umpteen Presidents - but Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC hold their own, and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove on Fox News are nothing to sneeze at.

All in all: MSNBC is well ahead in two of the five categories above, and close to equal and sometimes better on the other three.

Prediction: If MSNBC keeps this up during the ensuing General Election campaign, it will be the #1 cable news network.

Advice: MSNBC has wisely moved its "Doc Block" to the midnight hour. I'd recommend removing it completely.

Obama Makes Sense on Meet the Press

I just saw Barack Obama interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, and was especially impressed by the following points:

1. Obama said his "DNA" makes him ideally suited to bring Americans together - his black father and his white mother. I like that - the way Obama thinks and talks. When was the last time you heard another Presidential candidate of either party talk about DNA, in any connection to politics?

2. Obama again spoke about the superficiality of the American flag pin issue - the degree to which Obama wears and does not wear a pin. I couldn't agree more. Did it ever occur to those who think flag pins are so important that a terrorist could easily wear one? What counts is what candidates say and do - not what they wear in their lapels.

3. Obama explained his opposition to the gas tax holiday (McCain) and gas tax holiday plus windfall profits reduction (Clinton) proposals. They're sugar fixes, and, in the case of the windfall profits reductions, not likely to be signed into law by Bush any time soon. What's needed are the deeper solutions, that not only reduce oil company revenues, but reduce our consumption of oil. Any proposal that doesn't directly get at these underlying problems will only help us at the pumps for the next few months, at most.

4. Obama made clear his support of Israel, and his view that Israel's security was essential to the U.S. But he differed from Clinton's talk of "obliterating" Iran as counter-productive and dangerous. This kind of swaggering comes right of the Bush play book.

5. Obama said he will work hard for the Democratic ticket, whoever the nominee, and that the super delegates need not blindly follow the results of the primaries and caucuses. But nor, he emphasized, should they be unduly influenced by current snapshots and polls.

Has any other candidate presented as clear and thoughtful a series of positions?

MSNBC Unfurls Excellent New Lineup - But Why are They Keeping Their Lame "Doc-Block"?

MSNBC announced the following changes in its schedule, to take effect this coming Monday, March 17 -

.David Gregory, NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent, will anchor Race for the White House, a new daily show airing from 6-7pm
.NBC News' Andrea Mitchell will anchor MSNBC each weekday afternoon from 1-2pm
.Countdown with Keith Olbermann, on at 8pm, will now re-air a second time at 10pm, in addition to a third time at 2am.
.MSNBC's "doc block" will now air weeknights from 11pm-2am.
.Live with Dan Abrams will re-launch as Verdict with Dan Abrams, from 9-10pm.
.Tucker Carlson's show is out, but he will continue on MSNBC as Senior Campaign Correspondent.

These all look like excellent moves. With the strength of NBC regulars Brian Williams and Tim Russert, along with Tom Brokaw on election nights, MSNBC has the best election coverage in the business. David Gregory joining the weeknight lineup of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Dan Abrams makes a lot of sense. And when you add to that the stature and savvy of political commentators like Patrick Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is unbeatable.

But there's one thing I've never understood about MSNBC, and still don't get in the new lineup: why is MSNBC alienating the audience for its political coverage with its "doc block"? I know that I have dialed away from MSNBC many times when I wanted to see politics, and MSNBC had yet another show about life behind some prison bars....

Moving the doc-block to 11pm is a step in the right direction. My suggestion: move it to three o'clock in the morning, or off the network altogether.

Especially in an election year, the "Doc Block" is not the way to go...

Obama Shines in Ohio Debate, Clinton Shines And Whines to the Moderators

Obama and Clinton both did well, once again, in their debate in Ohio on MSNBC tonight. As Obama indicated at the end, and has said before, both are far, far better than what the Republicans are offering with John McCain.

What seemed to most distinguish Clinton from Obama tonight was also, once again, Clinton's occasional aggressiveness and one round of outright whining, in contrast to Obama's calm grace. This is something he first showed last week, and I thought then and now that it feels Presidential. He seems to be wearing the potential coat of the highest office very well.

Hillary Clinton's carping came early in the debate, when she complained to moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert that she's always asked questions first in the debates! This is supposed to be Presidential? What a petty point. I have to admit that I always like speaking first in public events, but, even if I did not, I would hardly complain about it in a national debate. And she topped it off with an awkward reference to Saturday Night Live's skit this past Saturday about the Clinton-Obama debate in Texas, in which the moderators were satirized as obsessively worrying about Obama's every need. Clinton's "joke" about this tonight, if that what it was, might have worked at a campaign rally. But, again, it fell flat in this debate.

Clinton also confronted Obama on several issues - most interestingly, I thought, on his response to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan support of Obama, given that Farrakhan is a raving anti-Semite. Obama said he "denounces" Farrakhan. Clinton pressed him on why doesn't outrightly "reject" Farrakhan's support. Obama's response was very telling: he said he didn't see any real difference between denunciation and rejection, but just so there would be no lack of clarity, he rejected Farrakhan's support.

I think this showed an admirable quality in Obama - a willingness to improve his position under pressure. I also give Clinton credit for pressing Obama on Farakhan. But of the two - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - Obama appeared more Presidential.

As I've been saying for for awhile, I think we are fortunate to have two very good candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. But this debate reinforced my feeling, once again, that Obama is the better candidate, and would make the better President.

We'll see what the voters in Texas and Ohio say on Tuesday.

Obama and McCain Win Handily; A Night of Three Speeches; And Chris Matthews on the Warpath

Barack Obama and John McCain won the Wisconsin primaries handily tonight, with percentages in the high 50s, better than 15 percent over their rivals, at this late point in the vote count.

This set in motion a night of three speeches, and a surprising (or maybe not so surprising) outburst from Chris Matthews:

1. John McCain has got to be one of the worst speakers in national politics today, let alone running for President, and all but sure to get the nomination of his Republican party. He has a flat, sing-song delivery, which deflates the few decent lines his speech writers give him, including his best phrase tonight about Democrats wanting to take a "holiday from history".

2. Hillary Clinton was in the process of giving a good if pedestrian speech in Ohio, avoiding any mention of or concession to Obama, when Obama took the stage in Houston to give his speech. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox all switched to Obama.

Later in the evening, some of the Hillary's people thought that was rude, Obama's campaign denied it was intentional, but Tim Russert on MSNBC probably had the best take: Obama's campaign was tired of waiting for Hillary to finish her non-concession speech - not the first lack of concession in the speech she has given after Obama won a primary. I'm inclined to sympathize with the Obama campaign on this one. Why should Obama wait if Hillary is just giving another stump speech on the night she has lost a primary?

3. Obama's speech was a pleasure to hear, as always. I admired his courage in bringing up the immigration issue to his Texas audience.

But to show you I don't blindly support everything Obama says: I disagreed with his use of "television" and "video games" as examples of what American kids should spend less time with - indeed, I certainly think television can be a good source of information and learning, and video games don't do any harm.

But that's ok. Neither I nor anyone has to agree with every single position of a candidate we support. It's more a question of where our candidate stands on the whole constellation of difficult issues facing our country and world.

And Obama's position on most of them suits me just fine (just as do Hillary's - I just think Obama's are a little better, and he would make the better, more inspiring, President).

Which brings me to Chris Matthews.

In a segment after the speeches, Matthews interviewed Kirk Watson, Texas State Senator and Obama supporter, and Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter. Matthews asked Watson to list Obama's accomplishments as U.S. Senator. Watson was rendered speechless. This triggered a classic Matthews in rude attack mode, in which he asked the same question, repeatedly, as if he were a prosecutor grilling a hostile witness on the stand.

My take on this: Matthews was entitled to ask the question, once, maybe twice, but not repeatedly badger his guest. Watson, for his part, put on an embarrassing (to Watson) display of his lack of knowledge. Obama's accomplishments as Senator are pretty well known, even to the general public, if only from watching his commercials. He worked on bills concerning lobbyist reform, energy, terrorism, and immigration - you can see the details on Obama's Wikipedia entry.

The Obama campaign can be held accountable for putting forth such a clueless or nervous or whatever-Watson's-problem-was spokesperson. But the American people deserve better than Matthews' uncivil badgering, too. Asking the question once or twice would have been enough.

Embarrassing your guest is unprofessional and not what we need in our media commentators.

Here's a link to Wonkette's page with a videoclip of the Matthews-Watson exchange.