‘A Standard for Fairness’

Was that just how times have changed, or his knack for engaging whomever he was interviewing?
I think it was both. He asked the questions that the viewers would have asked. He asked what they wanted to know. In previous generations, a lot of the questions were what the news people wanted to know, what they thought someone else should know. Tim really had a knack for making people sitting at home say, 'Boy, I'm glad he asked that question.' Or if you asked people, 'What would you like to ask John McCain?' then that's what Tim would ask. He really had a knack for sensing what would interest the veiwers.

Brian Williams said the seven-story panel of the First Amendment at the Newseum was Tim's initial idea, and he was a strong backer of the museum. How rich was his sense of news and broadcast history?
He said it himself that he was in awe that he inherited the position he was in. He had a tremendous amount of respect for all of his predecessors. I think he truly at times was humbled that he was following in their footsteps.

What was unique that Tim Russert brought to the table?
He didn't come from a news background; he was an attorney. That may have helped him in the long run. He wasn't star struck or at all full of himself. He set a standard for fairness. He spoke about how his dad had instilled in him [the need] to be civil. If you watched on Sunday mornings as millions of people did, he never raised his voice. Occasionally there was frustration if somebody didn't answer a question, but he kept a civil discourse, even with people he really grilled, which he grilled evenly. Peggy Noonan said that to this day, she had no idea how he voted when he got into a voting booth. So I think, civility, homework and intelligence really were the watchwords.

Are those qualities that have now been lost?
He was a person of great intelligence and great influence. You lose someone that people believed was a very fair broker. It's a challenge for the next person. Fortunately, there's a lot of talent at all of the networks. Somebody will step in, but they'll be overshadowed for some time because they'll be compared to Tim Russert for a long time. I think it's lost someone they consider a truly honest person. I would say that most Americans found him believable. As tough as he was, he seemed to be able to weather any questions or criticisms levied against him. I don't recall any political figures ever questioning his integrity or his research.

What is the outlook, both at NBC and in political broadcasting, without him?
Well, the industry as a whole is lessened. There's only one Tim Russert. The program will go on. They will find someone who is qualified, but [that person] will still be measured against him. The challenge will be to maintain that number one slot. Those programs are very often personality-driven and he had a commanding personality. It really depends upon who they pick, but it will go on. What we won't know for some time is whether people will migrate because Tim is not there. But people are pretty loyal to their networks when it comes to Sunday shows.

Does Meet the Press play a unique role in the country's political dialogue, more so than other shows?
All of the Big Three on the broadcast networks play a very special role for everyone who wants to hear in-depth news and analysis. The nightly news can't go in depth; it hasn't for a long time. Meet the Press really was the model for all the rest. All three of the Sunday talk shows really do an excellent job.