Tim Russert, sexism and journalists

I just attended a session of women historians in Minneapolis where the discussion turned to sexism and the recent  primary campaign for president. There was a hastily assembled but standing-room-only panel discussion on the campaign, perhaps sparked by the recent New York Times article on sexism aimed at Hillary Clinton.  There's been a lot more on the subject over the weekend, including today's Frank Rich column. I've also been reading and watching a lot on the death of Tim Russert.  It strikes me that maybe we should be thinking a lot about what is a journalist. The Times story was filled with reports, primarily fueled by  television -- especially cable television -- antics.  Is Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh or even Tim Russert a journalist?  

A few years ago, I was discussing agenda-setting with the former editor of U.S. News & World Report. I believed the print media's traditional agenda-setting primacy has been overtaken by that of television, which is now, in my view, driven by cable television dominated by commentators. Television today seems to be driven by a need to express emotion in every story. All TV standups seem to end with "sincere" exchanges between the anchor and the reporter expressing regret, joy, doubt, humor or whatever emotion is deemed appropriate.  I find that same tendency showing up in print stories among our student journalists.

Once upon a time, it was only editorials that "viewed with alarm" or "pointed with pride." I think we need to think carefully about who is a journalist. It's an important question.