1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RIP Tim Russert

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Pulitzer Wannabe, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. I know that there's a thread on "Sports and News," but thought the people who checked into the journalism board only need to see it, as well, considering his giant status in this business.
  2. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Wow!!!! I did not know this. I am floored.
  3. clutchcargo

    clutchcargo Active Member

    Russert was totally awesome.
  4. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    Rather than have discussion going in two places at once ...

  5. Lord knows that thread is nothing without a "totally awesome" comment.
  6. OK. So where did your paper run it today?

    Ours ran it on the inside A section.
  7. pseudo

    pseudo Active Member

    Top half of Page One:
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  8. It wasn't intended to start a discussion - just to alert people who come here first.

    Also - the New York Times had this below the fold!!!
  9. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    The story was 16 hours old by seven this morning. No one with a TV missed the Viking send-off.
  10. Um, dude, I posted it right at the height of the coverage the afternoon he died, because:

    1. Some people come to journalism topics first or exclusively.
    2. When a giant of journalism dies, it merits a mention on the journalism board.

    I don't understand why people have a problem with this.

    But then again, get a bunch of journalists in a room, and they're bound to start griping over nothing. It's our nature.
  11. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    I'm talking about the incredulity that the Times ran a way-old story below the fold.

    I couldn't give two shits about double-posting the item. Hell, it's a big story, post the fucking thing on all four boards if you have to.
  12. Ah, OK, gotcha.

    I just always thought the point of the NYT was to put order to the day before - for posterity's sake. Thus, I thought Russert deserved above-the-fold treatment.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page