... who, upon hearing "Tim Russert died" reacted by saying, "Who?"

Learning he was "the Meet the Press guy" did little to enlighten me... seeing his face lead to a vague, "oh... that guy..."

I don't watch cable "news" or punditry by choice... that would be why I didn't know of this guy, I guess... so I wasn't bothered by the apparent over-exposure of mourning, either, because I didn't see it. When are the cable "news" channels NOT giving inappropriate amounts of coverage to non-news events? When that day comes, maybe I'll watch enough to recognize the names of talking heads when they pass away.

I think the real reason it got so much attention was his position in the world of politics.

He was the Elvis of political reporters. He was everywhere and even his competitors wanted to capture his qualities. Being an Elvis of media meant that a lot of people who dont know a thing about politics or news might at least recognize him or his name. So the impact of his loss crossed many barriers-you didnt need to be a political person to recognize him-although you may only know him as "that guy that did the debates".

But most importantly you need to know that he was one of their own (reporters) so it shouldnt suprise anyone that reporters really felt the loss and responded with such an outpouring. Just as a death in your own family makes distant relatives come out of the woodwork this death got everyone in the media talking.

First: You don't watch television (your choice, and I don't watch much either), and then you come on here and ask what the big deal is about the death of this television personality. That makes no sense.

Second: if you consider yourself to be someone to whom being an informed consumer of news is important, I'm afraid you don't get a pass for not knowing who Russert is. Do you also not read a newspaper, ever, or read the political stuff on the web, ever? If you don't, only that would explain why you haven't heard of Russert.

If you don't follow politics, fine: that's your right. In a democracy, it is the right of citizens to remain uninformed. If you do, like him or not, how could you not have heard of him? Are you like 16 or something? Or 12?

Whoa there, big fella. I didn't ask what the big deal was, I was simply commenting that neither his death NOR the coverage much affected me. I saw this article, that's all. Ease off the defensive throttle, there.

And that might answer your next point - I saw the article on the internet. Does this maybe suggest to you my preferred media format?

I do consider myself an informed consumer of news, just not TV news. As such, although I've probably seen his name a few times, it never really stuck. Heck, I'm just not good with names and faces in general - you don't want me on your team in a rousing game of "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon".

So your little self-righteous tirade is a bit misplaced there. I just wanted to know if I was the only person who didn't immediately know who Tim Russert was, and if maybe it was because I happen to think cable news isn't really the best place to get information.

If knowing the names of talking heads on TV - even "important" ones - is your way of judging the news IQ of a person, the problem is with you, I think. I prefer not to watch cable news because they do tend to cover something endlessly that maybe deserved mention, but not 24 hr coverage to the exclusion of all else. And when that's not happening, they still tend to exclude news items that are important and interesting in favor of "new items" about celebrities.

Instead, I get my information where I have direct control over the depth and subject matter of what's in front of my face. So sorry for not brainlessly drooling in front of the tube and thinking that knowing the names of the *conduits* of the news is the same is knowing the *contents* of the news.

I'm 26, by the way. What are you, 50? 89?

"He was the Elvis of political reporters..... you didnt need to be a political person to recognize him-although you may only know him as 'that guy that did the debates'."

I guess the problem is I've just never realized I was supposed to be paying attention to the people talking about the news. There I was paying attention to the actual news part... silly me... :-)

The only time I can remember "the guy who did the debates" being important is when people were lambasting one this debate season for doing a terrible job and spending lots of time on questions that everyone was sick of, like the stupid lapel pin brouhaha. Other than that, aren't they kind of supposed to not be the point of the debates? I tend to forget about people like that, like the announcers during a televised football game. I only remember them if I don't like them - it never seemed important to remember them otherwise.

I really know very few "media people" by name or by sight, because of this oversight/inability of mine. There's that one guy who does football games with the hair and the incomprehensibility. Oh, and the dude with the bowtie... Tucker Carlson maybe? I think I'm hopeless in this respect. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, though. I really don't think it's as important a part of one's general news knowledge as avocado seems to.

Oh! And I know Barbara Walters, because she's the one who always makes people cry when they get interviewed by her. But I'm not sure whether I would have consciously picked up on that if it hadn't been the subject of comedy sketches and jokes.

Alright Kaiso, we get it. You're smarter, morally superior and cooler than everyone else because you don't watch the news on tv. You get it from the internet. And when you do watch it on tv, you don't pay attention to the reporter, you pay attention to the news. Congratulations. Maybe one day, we'll all be as cool as you.

Hi Kaiso,

I didnt intend to say you have a character flaw by any means. I was merely indicating that this particular reporter was a little more recognizable than most-even to many outside his profession. Its like knowing who Einstein is and not being scientific. I used Elvis because you dont need to know a thing about music to recognize the name or face. Same idea.

The other poster was a little less liberal about the situation. Personally I see it as a matter of general knowledge and not a requirement. I know who "Simon" is and dont watch or shive a git about American Idol-because I am bombarded with the advertisements on radio, tv, etc. I know who Napolean was too but Im not a student of his adventures-but I know the name and recognize the face.

The point is its not about you being a political or news person but about recognizing a name which is frequently mentioned everywhere from the internet to tv to radio-he would be called an example of "cultural literacy". But in the end, you asked why he got so much attention and the answer is that like Barbara Walters, everyone knew who he was for the most part. When Babs number comes up I would expect a similar media blitz on someone who really never impacted our lives directly but a name we would still be likely to recognize.

Chill out, dbguy. I wasn't saying that at all. I'm mostly making fun of myself for being oblivious to certain "cultural literacy" things that other people obviously remember easily, and also a little bit making fun of cable news for being annoying and lame in general, and a teensy bit making fun of the idea that a reporter's career is a really interesting thing to follow. I don't see how I have to think I'm way cooler and smarter than everyone else just to dislike cable news and prefer internet media...

I'm sorry if it came across that way.

It's really avocado who believes he's smarter than me, because he's familiar with TV news personalities in their oh-so-importantness. I am merely reacting to his sugggestion that I'm a clueless "American idiot", and possibly a teenager or child, simply because I don't recognize the name. He seems to believe that it's impossible to be a responsible citizen and consumer of news without understanding that Tim Russert = Barbara Walters or Elvis. Obviously, at least for me, it certainly is possible. Unless you agree that I'm NOT a consumer of news simply because I get it from the internet, in which case... who thinks he is smarter than whom, here?

I understand your point, RML... I'm just surprised that someone who apparently had the same kind of name recognition as Elvis, Barbara Walters, Simon whats-his-face the mean guy on Idol, and Einstein could have absolutely no place in my cultural face-book. How could I have been so oblivious, whether or not I'm a political news person? I just have a hole in my brain where "TV News Political People" are supposed to go, I guess.

Kaiso- you've mischaracterized Russert as a cable news guy a few times. While Russert did occasionally appear on cable, the main thing he was known for was meet the press, a sunday morning network show.

One can become informed in a number of ways, but meet the press, at its best, is what I will call a primary news source. News actually came from, and was made, on meet the press. Tim, in his interviews on MTP, would get the news right from the horse's mouth.

On the internet, rightly or wrongly, there is very little in the way of primary news. When was the last time the President sat down with a blogger or an website and answered their questions? It doesn't happen very often. Much of the "news" on the internet is news gathered by others, rehashed, repeated or commented upon.

I don't mean this in a condescending way, but that you get most of your news from the internet suggests a very simple understanding of news- where did this information come from, how did it get here? Those are the sorts of questions that I find difficult to discern when reading internet news, where these things are unclear and the line between news and commentary is blurred.

Actually I would point out that the press is something the USA really should be proud of for many reasons. The press is the most pure form of citizen run democracy we can hope for-it asks our questions and it voices our concerns to our leaders. Its investigative journalism does the digging we dont have the time or connections as working people to do-and it often discovers serious threats to our lives and familes-Love Canal and other places where environmental waste from corporations was killing people and making them sick would have gone unchecked for instance.

Of course Russert was simply interviewing the leaders-and getting them on record. But one cannot understate the importance of reporters to our lives whether we know it and appreciate it or not.

Oh, MTP is a network show? Sorry, my mistake. Sunday morning... now that might be the problem. Sunday mornings are not news-time for me. I'm either at church, sleeping, or doing something fun. :-)

MTP might be a primary news source, but not being a sharp political mind, I wouldn't get that much out of it. I get my information by reading multiple perspectives on what happened and what was said, because other people are better than me at winnowing out the implications, explaining the context, and pointing out parallels and discrepancies and such. Just reading what happened and what was said in and of itself wouldn't give me much to go on unless I did it all the time, perfectly.

In fact, I'm sure that I've read about things that were said as answers to questions on MTP, and considered them very important, without having to watch them myself or remembering the guy who was asking the questions.

I don't mean this in a condescending way, but it sounds like you're not very good at reading internet news. If a news/opinion source doesn't explain where information came from and how it "got there", it's not a very good source. Telling the difference between news and commentary is easy. The news part - what actually happened, what was actually said - is the news, and everything else is commentary. If you find multiple sources with differing viewpoints, you'll be able to see the various biases clearly. If one partisan site takes a quote out of context, the other partisan site will show the whole quote. You can read the commentary of multiple people on the same subject and , in my opinion, come out with a better understanding of what's going on that if you had read just one, or even just a plain vanilla account of what happened.

It seems like we have two different styles of finding information, and that's ok. I don't think I'm smarter or cooler than you, though. Your earlier response was a little off-the-mark and obnoxious.

I didn't say reporters weren't important, RML. I agree, actually, that they most definitely are.

I just don't see them as personalities and cultural figures in their own right. Lots of professions are important and do work to be proud of without their "stars" being household names. I guess other people do, but I don't really get it. A question is a question, a story is a story. Maybe one guy is better at coming up with questions and finding stories and getting facts than another, and I appreciate his hard work and talent, but I just always thought of them as more behind-the-scenes type people than movers and shakers.

You can say it was off the mark or obnoxious, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

You announce yourself as an incormed consumer of news, yet you can't place who Tim Russert is and you don't watch the sunday morning news programs.

I think you should trust your own ability to listen to facts and form your own opinion a little more than you do.

Regardless, there's still a fundamental problem with your posts- it goes something like this- I consider myself to be a big baseball fan. But I'm not sure who Mickey Mantle is. And I don't attend or watch baseball games. I just read about what people say about baseball on the internet. But still, I'm a huge baseball fan.

Finally, I just want to say that its a tad fishy that in response to an article saying that the coverage of Russert's death was overblown, and the issue is whether that is the case, or whether the article belittles him, you announce, hey, I'm not even sure who he was, and then swear up and down that you were merely seeking information.

Anyway, this has been fun and interesting.