USS Redskins Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Why bother paying someone to be a PR guy when you have someone doing it for free on NBC? I thought his show was called Hardball? Better change that to Softball. Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success http://www.breitbart.tv/html/214673.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Emanuel sounds like someone to be bad cop to Obama's good cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Why bother paying someone to be a PR guy when you have someone doing it for free on NBC? I thought his show was called Hardball? Better change that to Softball. Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success http://www.breitbart.tv/html/214673.html LOL! It is Obama who should be doing what he can to make it a successful presidency. It is the media's job to report the good and the bad. With Obama, we won't see to much bad as you can tell by Matthews response. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I found that clip kind of confusing (I watched it on Youtube). It looked to me like Matthews was talking about Rahm Emmanuel, and saying that it was Rahm Emmanuel's job to make Obama a success. I don't think he was trying to say that it is Chris Matthews' job as a reporter to make Obama a success. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was hard to tell because the clip got cut off abruptly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Damn reporters trying to be press secretaries! What a ridiculous notion. Right? At least he admitted it. It isn't good considering his profession, but to pretend there's not "journalists" out there who's job description just changed to trying to wreck this presidency, you're fooling yourself. But hey, why not. As long as you can point fingers at the other guy, who cares what the hell else happens. It's like yelling that someone stinks when your shoes are covered in ****. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I found that clip kind of confusing (I watched it on Youtube). It looked to me like Matthews was talking about Rahm Emmanuel, and saying that it was Rahm Emmanuel's job to make Obama a success. I don't think he was trying to say that it is Chris Matthews' job as a reporter to make Obama a success. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was hard to tell because the clip got cut off abruptly. I thought you could be right, and then I watched it again. I think you're wrong. Matthews actually came out and said that! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I thought you could be right, and then I watched it again. I think you're wrong. Matthews actually came out and said that! LOL I agree, he clearly was talking about himself. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 So Mathews has joined the ranks of Hannitty and Rush. Unapologetic. At least he admits it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Nah, there isn't any media bias for Obama. And we wonder why people don't watch read or download the news anymore. When they think their job is to make his pres work, and not report the news, all hope is lost!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Like this surprises anyone. The liberal bias in the media is huge. Always has been. And people point fingers at fox....because they allow some conservative viewpoints in addition to libs like Combs. Hysterical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Nah, there isn't any media bias for Obama. And we wonder why people don't watch read or download the news anymore. When they think their job is to make his pres work, and not report the news, all hope is lost!! But you do watch the news. You've mentioned many times how Fox is all you'll watch. You see the same thing there, but this is what bothers you. Bias should bother you from both sides, but you seem to only notice it from the left. Slightly hypocritical, no? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 But you do watch the news. You've mentioned many times how Fox is all you'll watch.You see the same thing there, but this is what bothers you. Bias should bother you from both sides, but you seem to only notice it from the left. Slightly hypocritical, no? ~Bang I don't think he is. While Foxnews leans to the right in most of its opinion programs, the other news orgs strongly tilt to the left. They are behond being just biased for one side. What Matthews just admitted is the liberal media will now start to promote one political ideology. Want proof? Did you get a chance to watch MSNBC's election coverage? They had Oberdork and his lesbian twin Rachel Maddow doing election commentary like they were credible journalists and not the political hacks they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I thought you could be right, and then I watched it again. I think you're wrong. Matthews actually came out and said that! LOL Don't worry about it. Predicto doesn't want to admit the folks on his side of the political isle would do something so damaging to the responsibility of the news media in a democratic country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 its only dangerous if the people buy it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 pretty shameless, but not a surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I don't think he is. While Foxnews leans to the right in most of its opinion programs, the other news orgs strongly tilt to the left. They are behond being just biased for one side. What Matthews just admitted is the liberal media will now start to promote one political ideology.Want proof? Did you get a chance to watch MSNBC's election coverage? They had Oberdork and his lesbian twin Rachel Maddow doing election commentary like they were credible journalists and not the political hacks they really are. I don't need proof. I'm not sticking up for Matthews or any of them. I'm tired of the constant finger pointing bull**** pretending that the bias on the left is this huge outrage when there's a huge propaganda infotainment network devoted to the right. None of it is acceptable. Period. And it makes me want to puke to hear people not only accept it, but pretend that it doesn't exist on their side so they can cry about this liberal bias. It's plain ignorant. THIS is the kind of crap that gives them their permission to manipulate us. Do we enjoy being led by the nose by people with an agenda? Is that why we allow it? Is that why some folks pretend one side doesn't do it and the other side has this massive conspiracy to do it all the time, everywhere, over everything? ****. Demand better of our 'news' sources. Demand better of ourselves. Recognize it, and stop excusing it because the other side does it. The answer is to demand the liberal propaganda networks STOP being propagandists,, not set up your own crew that's just as bad. Now the WHOLE neighborhood stinks. Now these "news " organizations have our permission to do this crap. Here's a novel idea. Set a better example. In my life there have been 11 presidential elections, and this is only the fourth one won by a Democrat. For all this media bias, you'd think they could do a better job, eh? 4 out of 11? It gets tiresome hearing all the time from every single republican all day long about this damn media bias that actually works better for them than against them. The bottom line is we don't need propagandists separating us and keeping us all at each others throats. But the right seems to revel in it. And the left seems to be content that it exists. So off everyone goes, like mice dancing into the lake to the tune of their own Pied Piper. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 Bang - to me this is just an example of why Fox News Channel is so big. The Networks are so biased, there is no place that conservatives feel their side gets a fair deal. Fox is biased right, sure but that is one network versus like 10 others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Bang - to me this is just an example of why Fox News Channel is so big. The Networks are so biased, there is no place that conservatives feel their side gets a fair deal. Fox is biased right, sure but that is one network versus like 10 others. I can understand that, and that is part of what I find distressing. I see these talking heads as nothing but divisive. And I really think that since the advent of these cable infotainment propaganda networks, things have gotten REALLY vicious among the people of this country. I see it getting us nowhere. Ever. As long as one side is prepared to do nothing but work against and tear down the one who is in power (regardless of which it may be), we'll just spin our wheels as a people, driving only deeper into the ruts. But it only happens if we allow it. And unfortunately, we are. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Nothing wrong with working together. I remember Reagan and Tip O'Neil battling like madmen most of the time, and when they came together, great things happened for this country. There's no reason why we can't work together. But these networks keep finding those reasons, and flooding us with them. As a nation, THIS nation,, the greatest nation this earth has ever known, we deserve better. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 7, 2008 Author Share Posted November 7, 2008 I can understand that, and that is part of what I find distressing.I see these talking heads as nothing but divisive. And I really think that since the advent of these cable infotainment propaganda networks, things have gotten REALLY vicious among the people of this country. I see it getting us nowhere. Ever. As long as one side is prepared to do nothing but work against and tear down the one who is in power (regardless of which it may be), we'll just spin our wheels as a people, driving only deeper into the ruts. But it only happens if we allow it. And unfortunately, we are. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Nothing wrong with working together. I remember Reagan and Tip O'Neil battling like madmen most of the time, and when they came together, great things happened for this country. There's no reason why we can't work together. But these networks keep finding those reasons, and flooding us with them. As a nation, THIS nation,, the greatest nation this earth has ever known, we deserve better. ~Bang Cant argue with the truth - we have to work together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I saw this. I thought it was weird. I think it could be put into a little bit of context though: Scarborough and Mika had just spent the entire morning discussing whether the leak about Emannuel being picked meant that Obama was already not in control. I think what Matthews was TRYING to say was that what they were discussing was ridiculous. And I think he was trying to say that the job of a reporter is to raise real concerns that make everyone, including the President, THINK about what they are doing. But that this story was not going to help anyone do that. He was trying to say it was a non-story, but it came off very, very poorly. And it sounded very biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I can understand that, and that is part of what I find distressing.I see these talking heads as nothing but divisive. And I really think that since the advent of these cable infotainment propaganda networks, things have gotten REALLY vicious among the people of this country. I see it getting us nowhere. Ever. As long as one side is prepared to do nothing but work against and tear down the one who is in power (regardless of which it may be), we'll just spin our wheels as a people, driving only deeper into the ruts. But it only happens if we allow it. And unfortunately, we are. There's nothing wrong with compromise. Nothing wrong with working together. I remember Reagan and Tip O'Neil battling like madmen most of the time, and when they came together, great things happened for this country. There's no reason why we can't work together. But these networks keep finding those reasons, and flooding us with them. As a nation, THIS nation,, the greatest nation this earth has ever known, we deserve better. ~Bang You know what REALLY pisses me off about all the networks political coverage... They think that being fair to both sides means you get one whack job on the left, and put him on with one whack job from the right. Why can't they just get two moderates to go on and point out that there's a lot of common ground, as opposed to getting the most conservative and the most liberal people they can find, and then try to paint them as the standard for "conservatives" and "liberals." It really makes both sides think the other side is whacky because they hear only the most extreme views from each side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I don't think he is. While Foxnews leans to the right in most of its opinion programs, the other news orgs strongly tilt to the left. They are behond being just biased for one side. What Matthews just admitted is the liberal media will now start to promote one political ideology.Want proof? Did you get a chance to watch MSNBC's election coverage? They had Oberdork and his lesbian twin Rachel Maddow doing election commentary like they were credible journalists and not the political hacks they really are. Just curious but what does Maddow being a lesbian have to do with anything? MSNBC also brings on Pat Buchanan like every 5 minutes . . . and as we all know he is so left-leaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 That irks me more than anything. 2% whackjob of the left arguing with the 2% whackjob to the right. What you get is crap. DVR is my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 I saw this. I thought it was weird. I think it could be put into a little bit of context though:Scarborough and Mika had just spent the entire morning discussing whether the leak about Emannuel being picked meant that Obama was already not in control. I think what Matthews was TRYING to say was that what they were discussing was ridiculous. And I think he was trying to say that the job of a reporter is to raise real concerns that make everyone, including the President, THINK about what they are doing. But that this story was not going to help anyone do that. He was trying to say it was a non-story, but it came off very, very poorly. And it sounded very biased. That is a bit of a stretch. You have to reach too far for this interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 That is a bit of a stretch. You have to reach too far for this interpretation. I have a hard time believing he actually meant this as it sounded. I would love to hear the entire context of the statement and I definitely hope that he just explained himself very poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.