Mediocre?

I saw my most liberal friend this weekend and the topic of Tim Russert came up. She began to say that she felt he was a mediocre journalist who was more concerned with staying "in" with everyone than challenging those with power and getting at the truth.

My initial reaction was that calling him mediocre was a bit pejorative. Once I got past that, I started to wonder if her base argument was true. She sent me an email just a while ago with an article from Harpers that addressed Tim Russert. After reading it I started to see the point. I am not sure I 100% agree. I think that he challenged and put his interviewees on the spot to tell the truth about their position. He helped people to better see what that person's "truth" might be. I think he left the conclusion up to the viewer.

I know that, from my perspective, anyone who interviews someone so aggressively in an attempt to prove their "truth" turns me off. I can't help but question their political positions and motivations. I could be wrong - but I think that I feel most comfortable with interviews like those I have watched on Meet the Press for the past years.

What do you think?