Both of these professionals are investigative reporters. Since they both have this in common it should be possible to compare and contrast them to evaluate how well they do their job.
Another more specific commonality is their interview with Ron Paul. Let's examine the interviews and see if either of these reporters distinguishes himself.
John Stossel sat down with Ron Paul for an interview and broke the interview into segments. Each segment focused on certain aspects of the Ron Paul candicacy derived from the issues raised by Ron Paul during the campaign and from the reasons for supporting him given by his supporters. This was the first bit of evidence that John Stossel did preparatory research.
Then during the interview John Stossel asked probing questions, always posing the questions in the manner of a polite skeptic. Listening to the thoughtful questions posed it was obvious again that John Stossel did his research.
In contrast Tim Russert sat down with Ron Paul and broke the interview up into disjointed points. Tim Russert also did research, apparently digging deeply to find any inconsistencies in Ron Paul record of service. One reason Russert chose the 'disjointed points' format was to create an appearance of inconsistency.
Combined with this strategy of 'disjointed points' was the style of the interview chosen by Russert. Instead of asking a question or making a statement and allowing an answer, Russert pelted Ron Paul with these points allowing little time for Ron Paul to answer and even used unsubstantiated quotes as part of the interview technique. Consider this: If a question is asked, and a distortion is used as part of the question, which of these two should be responded to? And then before the response is finished another deliberately duplicitous question is thrown out.
The result of these techniques is to create the appearance of confusion.
How many decent human beings act his way? How would you respond to this vulgar and oppressive interview method?
Ron Paul is too polite to call Tim Russert a liar. He did, however, say that Russert simply did not understand that 'amending the Constitution is constitutional' during one of the times when Russert was conniving.
I think that journalism majors will be able to compare and contrast these two interviews for many years. Students will see the dignity of John Stossel and how well he prepares and I am sure they will want to model his professionalism.
And then there is the Tim Russert interview! Even students at his alma mater will cringe at this reprehensible interview.
What would make a person who is supposedly a professional act in such a degraded manner? Apparently he is a puppet with strings attached. The interventionists who are in control of the media are moving the strings and Russert is moving just as they wish.
During the interview Ron Paul spoke about the danger of fascism as being very real. As the champion of the Constitution he knows that he will have to battle enemies foreign and domestic. The fascists who move Russert's strings are trying to discredit Ron Paul.
Hopefully brave and free Americans will not be not as gentle and polite as Ron Paul. What I mean is this: Tim Russert is a lying, conniving, and enslaved haranguer!