Tim Russert had landed a coup, getting a chance to interview the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, just a few days after the London bombings.
Russert, host of NBC's Meet the Press, asked reasonable questions. But Chertoff provided a series of mushy, non-specific answers — the sort of boilerplate information that was, for the most part, unrelated to Thursday's attack.
But Russert failed to challenge Chertoff, avoiding necessary follow-up questions to wade through the secretary's mush. Why? It can only be because Russert failed to sufficiently prepare for the interview, or because he was being soft in the wake of this latest chapter on the "war on terror."
Let's rule out lack of preparation, because Russert is a champion for doing one's homework. As he points out in his book, Big Russ & Me:
RUSSERT (page 147): The second lesson from that day is that the key to success is preparation. In journalism, it’s absolutely crucial. Like everyone else, I have days when things go well, and days when they don’t. But one mistake I have never made is to show up unprepared for an interview.
So that's settled. Therefore I ask, why is Russert incapable of wading through the mush?
Let's take a look at a few key points of the interview:
RUSSERT: Since September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda has been responsible for at least 17 bombings around the world, causing the death of some 700 people. Is al-Qaeda alive and well?
CHERTOFF: Well, it is, but I think we have to be careful to distinguish between two types of al-Qaeda activities. There's the actual core group itself, which has discipline and owes loyalty to bin Laden and its top leadership, but then there is a network of terror organizations going back even before 2001 that is sympathetic, that gets aid and assistance from al-Qaeda in some circumstances, but that is also semi-autonomous. So we have a kind of a range of groups that are out there committing acts of terror, and some of them are, frankly, focused on local issues in other parts of the world.
Chertoff's answer is unrelated to London, which should have led Russert to one of these follow-up questions:
RUSSERT: Is the London bombing proof that our strategy in the "war on terror" is unsuccessful? Have we focused too much of our attention to fighting the Iraqi insurgents, and not enough to dismantling Al Qaeda and its affiliates?
Article comments
1 - iuffui
You said: "Tim Russert had landed a coup, getting a chance to interview the Homeland Security secretary, Michael Chertoff, just a few days after the London bombings."
I guess you missed the fact that Chertoff was on every broadcast network Sunday morning show?
2 - David R. Mark
What I meant was "a great opportunity," not necessarily an exclusive.
3 - Dave Nalle
Russert DID ask good questions, even if they aren't the ones you might have asked. He got a lot of vital information out of Chertoff, and it's possible that he laid off some of the issues you brought up because he knew that his next interview with Flynn and Admiral Loy was going to cover a lot of the ground you thought he should have covered with Chertoff - and it did go over those issues in great detail and far more candidly and pessimistically than Chertoff would have been able to address them.
Dave
4 - gonzo marx
the interview was mostly fluff due to the lack of follow-ups...canned answers full of politico non-speak
it would be interesting to see if the Questions were given to Chertoff beforehand..but that is immaterial at this point
sad day indeed, when someone like Russert misses out on pertinent follow up questions and allows the interviewee to do what they like, rather than shooting for the actual "meat" to be had...
it seems to be rampant when journalism and investigative reporting are tossed aside for fluff in order to boost ratings and advertising sales rather than pursuing the mission of the Fourth Estate
Excelsior!
5 - RJ
I have to admit, Mr. Mark has a great post here. Russert is usually tougher with his guests than he appeared to be with Chertoff.
The question is: Was he equally easy on his other (anti-adminstration) guests? Because, if he was, this would sort of balance it all out, wouldn't it?
6 - gonzo marx
not really , RJ..i don't care who was in that seat...softballing doesn't serve the Purpose of investigative and informative Journalism
Russert has been slipping for months now...ever since the WH interview with the Shrub...same pattern, decent Questions, they get avoided, and no follow up
there have been exceptions, he still hits hard on occasion...but far too many very important Interviews went like the one cited here
too bad...since Berny Shaw left the Scene, there are very few that will stand up and get tough...all part of the Game, i know..if you get too tough , you start losing Guests with big names...
ratings and money, rather than the Principles of the 4th Estate...
i consider that much more dangeros to our Democracy than even the "Patriot" Act...damnable as that is
Excelsior!
7 - David R. Mark
Thanks, RJ.
8 - Tristan
I haven't had a chance yet to read through your entire post, but I read the first question that you provided as evidence that Russert was soft. I'm not going to say whether your conclusion is correct or not (again, I neither read the entire post nor had a chance to watch the program) but I am going to take issue with one particular element. You state that
"Chertoff provided a series of mushy, non-specific answers -- the sort of boilerplate information that was, for the most part, unrelated to Thursday's attack."
His response to the first question though is, in fact, related to the London bombings and has the additional bonus of answering the question directly and to my astonishment, he does so with the first sentence. Russert asks if al-Qaeda is alive and well. Chertoff's first words are "Well it is..." This is a pretty direct answer. The rest of his response is an attempt to clarify between al-Qaeda and the groups that al-Qaeda supports. His response seems to say that either we can eliminate those threats by cutting off the head of the network (consisting of bin Laden and his closest allies) or that even the elimination of al-Qaeda will not necessarily end the types of attacks we recently saw carried out in London. These attacks were not terribly difficult to carry out. The timing of the blasts had to be synchronized which takes some effort, but this could have been carried out by any of these smaller groups. Cutting al-Qaeda out of the picture would put a financial burden on these smaller groups, but they would still be able to function without orders. It is even possible to say it is likely this will happen because of his final comment in that response:
"...some of them are, frankly, focused on local issues in other parts of the world."
Therefore, even motivation to carry out attacks would not die with al-Qaeda.
Again, I haven't read the entire post, but on this question at least, I think you fail to prove the basis of your post.
9 - David R. Mark
I disagree. Only a moron would have answered "No, Al Qaeda is not alive and well" in the days prior to the London bombing.
The first part of the answer is direct, but like I said, boilerplate -- unless you're expectation for this administration's ability to answer a simple question is lower than mine.
10 - Tristan
I was just saying that that one question was a direct answer and was in fact related.
And prior to the London bombing, I think most of the Bush administration would have said that al-Qaeda had been marginalized, and hence, Bush doesn't think about bin Laden all that often. So it's nice to see that someone is at least able to say otherwise, even if it takes a terrorist attack to make it happen.
And it's your, not you're.
11 - David R. Mark
Thanks for the grammar correction. Oy.
Even if you believe that Chertoff's answer to that question varies from traditional Bush Administration boilerplate -- I don't -- that's a small part of the overall interview.
The point is not even really about Chertoff's answers -- it's about Russert's questions. He is willing to grill the likes of Howard Dean and Bob Kerrey, but yesterday was not the first time he turned to mush speaking to a Bush Administration official.
His interview with Andrew Card was painful to watch. And his interview recently of Donald Rumsfeld was similar to the Chertoff interview -- decent-enough questions, but no follow-ups, no probing. It was as if he didn't even listen to the answers.
12 - Maurice
Gonzo,
you live in a Republic not a Democracy. I don't believe the Patriot Act is a problem for you.