I remember Mike Barnicle of The Boston Globe being stunned at the attention given to Princess Diana's abrupt death. He wondered, in print, if an "amiable airhead" warranted the level of attention she was getting. And while I get the point of media saturation over particular events, I've got to say that in the case of Tim Russert, the media has lost one of its own and wants to honor him.

Really, is that so terrible? Frankly I'm relieved to have the focus off yet another analysis article of where Clinton went wrong, or that Cindy McCain may have plagiarized a cookie recipe for submission in Family Circle (or was it Women's Day) magazine. People mourn in different ways and if colleagues want to commemorate the guy with Russert retrospectives, speeches about Russert etc. then let them do it.

I've seen a LOT of reckless reporting from the MSM during primary season and people could do a lot worse than fete a classy guy who treated his guests equally, regardless of where they sat on the political spectrum. If you were talking about Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity I may be inclined to say "you're right...enough already!" If the Russert coverage is too much, why not change the channel...or not further dwell on the issue by, oh, writing a piece about it?