You Know The TV Bobbleheads Have Too Much Power

When a sudden death in their ranks gets the Anna Nicole Smith treatment:

After Russert's shocking death Friday at age 58, television kept serving up witnesses to his expertise, intelligence, diligence, kindness, faith, love of family, Buffalo and the Buffalo Bills. The self-indulgence was breathtaking.

On Monday's "Today," Matt Lauer interviewed Russert's son, Luke. The show basically gave over the first half-hour to the Russert story. Presidential candidates aren't questioned at such length on morning programs.

And the children of America's fallen heroes don't receive such a platform, either.

Here are a few points to consider:

Does the coverage move the story along? "ABC World News" examined heart disease, which killed Russert. Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren took up the same issue. But so much of the coverage was of the "I remember Tim" variety. Sad to say, a lot of it was repetitive.

Is there a sense of proportion? Peter Jennings didn't receive such heavy coverage when he died -- ABC doesn't own a cable channel. And he was in our homes, night after night, for 20 years. MSNBC kept Russert front and center through the weekend. How will NBC cover the passing of Tom Brokaw? Hasn't he been the most influential figure at NBC for the past two decades?

Do the hours of coverage inflate the story? Tim Russert was excellent at his job, make no mistake. He worked hard, he treated his guests fairly, and he asked tough questions. But by weekend's end, some commentators had elevated him to preeminent journalist of his time. And one reader wrote: "His was the most noteworthy and untimely 'public' death in the past 20 years."

Really? Beware hyperbole.

Is the coverage professional? A lot of the comments about Russert should have been saved for the office. NBC should have approached covering Russert as the network would have any other public figure who had died. Hard to do, yes, but that should have been the goal. Instead, Russert's colleagues used the airwaves to work through their grief. Some people will excuse that style out of sympathy, but that approach just wasn't right.

Does the coverage of one story obscure everything else in the world? Russert dominated the MSNBC news menu over the weekend. The reader I quoted earlier defended that approach: "No one I talked [to] mentioned floods in the midwest or Iraq. They talked about Tim Russert. You need a reality check."

Maybe, but not on this point. The news needs to be a mix of stories. People needed to be reminded about the Iowa floods -- people are suffering on a grand scale there. But, of course, those people live far from the Washington Beltway, and so they won't gain the vast air time accorded to journalists and politicians.