RIP Tim Russert

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.

 

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

 

Russert was totally awesome.

 

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

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/57433/

 

Lord knows that thread is nothing without a "totally awesome" comment.

 

OK. So where did your paper run it today?

Ours ran it on the inside A section.

 

Top half of Page One:

 

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!!!

 

The story was 16 hours old by seven this morning. No one with a TV missed the Viking send-off.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.