Chris Matthews - job checklist: Make Obama a Success

[SkinsNumberOne]

He was clearly talking about himself.

It's disturbing to hear a journalist say this, but I don't think this kind of thing is going to be unique, and I also don't think it's necessarily as much of a liberal bias thing (not arguing there is some liberal bias, not as far-reaching and extreme as some would say, but yes it's there) as it is an Obama bias thing.

People really get motivated/stirred by Obama. It speaks to his leadership qualities. Let's hope they are put to good use.

[War Paint]

Here's a clip of Chevy Chase talking about using SNL to help one candidate over the other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PryGGX63MaU

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That is a bit of a stretch. You have to reach too far for this interpretation.

If you had seen the whole show that morning, I think that's what he's trying to say. He did a bad job of explaining himself, but I think he's really just annoyed with Scarborough's attitude lately. And I think he was trying to say, "ok Joe, I know youre a republican, but you don't have to go on the attack on this guy on day 1."

But he did a really bad job of saying that.

[TheLongshot]

Sorry, but these guys are human and they all have their biases. I'm actually a big fan of these guys being upfront about those biases so that I can get a perspective of where they are coming from.

Personally, I think the clip posted in this thread doesn't have a lot of context to it. From what I saw, it looked like Matthews was pretty frustrated with Scarborough and I wonder if the comment was in reaction to feeling like he was hammering a point beyond recognition. It would be interesting to see the whole clip.

Jason

[btfoom]

All of you arguing about whether there is 'bias in the media' miss the point of THIS thread. This thread is about Chris Matthews, a supposed 'journalist', whose job it is to report the news, telling anyone who will listen that ""I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work". Direct quote, easily heard, and the clip shows ALL of the context you need.

There is no middle ground here. He is saying that he will forego his journalistic duties to make sure Obama's presidency works. Unfortunately, that is not his job. His job is to report the news. I would be equally appalled if an anchor of another news program said 'I want to do everything I can to make sure this thing does not work, this new presidency not work".

I'm not going to use him as proof that there is a liberal bias in the media, just point out that HE is admittedly biased and therefore not to be taken seriously by anyone with intellectual honesty.

[Bang]

Is Matthews actually a journalist, or an opinionist?

There's a big difference, especially in the context of this thread.

If folks see him as a journalist, this is bad. If he's an opinionist, he's being forthright.

I kind of see him as an opinionist, personally.

But in respect to what I was saying earlier, these opinionists have been cast as journalist, and the lines are very blurry now.

~Bang

[btfoom]

Is Matthews actually a journalist, or an opinionist?

There's a big difference, especially in the context of this thread.

If folks see him as a journalist, this is bad. If he's an opinionist, he's being forthright.

I kind of see him as an opinionist, personally.

But in respect to what I was saying earlier, these opinionists have been cast as journalist, and the lines are very blurry now.

~Bang

Hey Bang,

You are right on with regards to the line between "opinionist" and "journalist" being blurred.

The best I could find is a direct quote from Chris on his job:

Chris in his own words (found on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080432/ )

About me

I have been interested in national politics since I was five years old. My main concerns are the role of the federal government in our daily lives and the role of America in the world. My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.

The bold/underline is my doing. I don't see how that part of his own description of his job jives with the one on the clip shown by the OP.

(ot - Bang, I like your posts as they are almost always well thought out and don't come across as being nasty or negative)

[Johnny Punani]

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.

So what? What does that prove? MSNBC throws in a token conservative and you think that makes them legit and not a hack media outlet? See, even those you think of as highly biased on Foxnews (Hannity, O'Reilly) have guests on who have opposite views and they go at it (Ex. O'Reilly/Frank). However, I have NEVER seen Oberdork and Maddow have anyone on their shows who are from a different political ideology. They only bring on guests who affirm their opinions making it look to like their opinions are justified. That is what makes them and MSNBC/NBC total hacks.

[Johnny Punani]

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

That would be great if it came to pass. However, I am not optimistic about the chances. I am not saying Foxnews isn't biased. It clearly is biased, but what I am drawing attention to is the huge disparity between media outlets who push a left-bias and those who push a right-bias. Also, the move to go past simply being biased and openly joining forces with political parties to push propaganda.

[btfoom]

... See, even those you think of as highly biased on Foxnews (Hannity, O'Reilly) have guests on who have opposite views and they go at it (Ex. O'Reilly/Frank). ....

I know it is a little off topic, but the show is the Hannity (Sean) and Colmes (Alan) Show. Half the show to Hannity (conservative), half to Colmes (liberal).

[Heisenberg]

So what? What does that prove? MSNBC throws in a token conservative and you think that makes them legit and not a hack media outlet? See, even those you think of as highly biased on Foxnews (Hannity, O'Reilly) have guests on who have opposite views and they go at it (Ex. O'Reilly/Frank). However, I have NEVER seen Oberdork and Maddow have anyone on their shows who are from a different political ideology. They only bring on guests who affirm their opinions making it look to like their opinions are justified. That is what makes them and MSNBC/NBC total hacks.

I never said it makes them legit. MSNBC has plenty of shows that show bias and I'm not denying that - part of the reason I watch mostly CNN. However, you obviously have never seen Maddow's show considering she basically has Buchanan on almost every night - he is a regular guest on that show. Of course, there's no defending Olbermann but he doesn't even try to claim his show is legit journalism.

I know it is a little off topic, but the show is the Hannity (Sean) and Colmes (Alan) Show. Half the show to Hannity (conservative), half to Colmes (liberal).

Colmes is far from "liberal" and is a moderate at best - not that I really care, I don't watch the show.

[Johnny Punani]

I know it is a little off topic, but the show is the Hannity (Sean) and Colmes (Alan) Show. Half the show to Hannity (conservative), half to Colmes (liberal).

I know that. I just mentioned Hannity because he is targeted by the left.

[Johnny Punani]

I never said it makes them legit. MSNBC has plenty of shows that show bias and I'm not denying that - part of the reason I watch mostly CNN. However, you obviously have never seen Maddow's show considering she basically has Buchanan on almost every night - he is a regular guest on that show. Of course, there's no defending Olbermann but he doesn't even try to claim his show is legit journalism.

But Buchanan is anti-republican and that's why he is on Maddow's show.

[btfoom]

I know that. I just mentioned Hannity because he is targeted by the left.

I knew you did, I just put it there for emphasis (for those who always think of Fox as the MOST FAR RIGHT NETWORK, EVAR!!!).

[btfoom]

Colmes is far from "liberal" and is a moderate at best - not that I really care, I don't watch the show.

If that is what you really think, then you obviously don't watch the show. He's as 'moderate' as Hannity.

to get back on topic, Chris Matthews - certainly not moderate at all.

[Heisenberg]

If that is what you really think, then you obviously don't watch the show. He's as 'moderate' as Hannity.

to get back on topic, Chris Matthews - certainly not moderate at all.

Never said Matthews was moderate.

Alan Colmes is touted by Fox as "a hard-hitting liberal", but he admitted to USA Today that "I'm quite moderate".[4]

Information is backed up by a source.

[ross3909]

It is sad that this is not disturbing to more people.

[Ivy94f]

In all honesty, I can tell that Matthews does like Obama, but I don't think after watching him during this election that he's going to let pundits, or policies that he doesn't like get spun just to make the administration look good. I've seen Matthews go hard on Obama about the campaign money, and on some other issues. I just don't believe that in four years he's going to be Hannity biased because that hasn't been what I've seen from him.

[TheLongshot]

All of you arguing about whether there is 'bias in the media' miss the point of THIS thread. This thread is about Chris Matthews, a supposed 'journalist', whose job it is to report the news, telling anyone who will listen that ""I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work". Direct quote, easily heard, and the clip shows ALL of the context you need.

There is no middle ground here. He is saying that he will forego his journalistic duties to make sure Obama's presidency works. Unfortunately, that is not his job. His job is to report the news. I would be equally appalled if an anchor of another news program said 'I want to do everything I can to make sure this thing does not work, this new presidency not work".

I'm not going to use him as proof that there is a liberal bias in the media, just point out that HE is admittedly biased and therefore not to be taken seriously by anyone with intellectual honesty.

Well, first off his job isn't just to report the news, but also to express his opinion. He brings people on who also express their opinion. He's no different than a lot of talking heads on the TV.

Also, I was thinking about what he said and listened to it again. he followed those words with "This country needs a successful President", which I can fully get behind, no matter which party is in charge.

Now, does making a successful Presidency mean that he's going to agree with everything Obama says? I don't think so. I think to encourage a successful Presidency that a person needs to speak their mind about what is right and what is wrong. Anyone who can't do that isn't helping much of anything. That is also where I think he was going with that comment, and I think that comment would have been the same if there was a Democrat or a Republican in the job.

As I said before, we don't have the whole clip, but it sounded like Scarbourogh wanted to sling some dirt about the Rahm Emanuel decision and Matthews wanted nothing to do with it.

Jason

[Bang]

That would be great if it came to pass. However, I am not optimistic about the chances. I am not saying Foxnews isn't biased. It clearly is biased, but what I am drawing attention to is the huge disparity between media outlets who push a left-bias and those who push a right-bias. Also, the move to go past simply being biased and openly joining forces with political parties to push propaganda.

It can come to pass. WE hold the power.

We don't want these propagandists? Turn them off of our TV sets. Money talks, and if we walk, so do advertisers. There's good people on all of these networks that do give us good solid reporting, so watch them, and when Hannity or O'Reilly, or Olbermann et al come on,, turn the channel.

Hey Bang,

You are right on with regards to the line between "opinionist" and "journalist" being blurred.

The best I could find is a direct quote from Chris on his job:

Chris in his own words (found on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080432/ )

About me

I have been interested in national politics since I was five years old. My main concerns are the role of the federal government in our daily lives and the role of America in the world. My main ambition as a journalist is to cut through the public relations and find the truth in what politicians are saying and doing.

Well, that does make a difference, doesn't it? Shame on him. (Of course, he can change his career field if he likes and become an opinionist, but don't try to push it off as reporting)

(ot - Bang, I like your posts as they are almost always well thought out and don't come across as being nasty or negative)

Thanks! Others would probably disagree, I can get sarcastic at times, and over in the Stadium I can get downright ugly. I have very little patience for the animals that populate that particular zoo.

~Bang

[TheLongshot]

It can come to pass. WE hold the power.

We don't want these propagandists? Turn them off of our TV sets. Money talks, and if we walk, so do advertisers. There's good people on all of these networks that do give us good solid reporting, so watch them, and when Hannity or O'Reilly, or Olbermann et al come on,, turn the channel.

Personally, I don't have a lot of problem with bias as long as you are honest about it. My problem with Foxnews isn't because it is slanted, but that they claim that they are "fair and balanced". At least the MSNBC guys are pretty upfront about their preferences.

As I said above, these talking head shows are designed to express opinions. They aren't there to report the news. They are there to cherry pick specific topics and use them as talking points.

Jason

[81artmonk]

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 watch O'reily and Hannity, and that isn't the news, those are political entertainment programs.

If I watch any news, it is fox and only for the duration of a commercial before I have to switch back to the program I was originally watching before they went to a commercail.

That misses the point anyway. His comment shows the level of stupidity that news has lowered to. Instead of reporting the news, they are activily supporting a candidate. If they can be so blatant about it, than how I can I be sure they aren't lying about other things they "claim" to report on as being truthful, since they prove thier bias out in the open.

[81artmonk]

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.

:bsflag:

Is fox biased no. Are they fairer to the right, some. When I watch the news I've found fox to be much more balanced than the others.

It doesn't take a rockt scientist to see that almost every day it's some negative report on Bush, the republicans, or pro Obama.

want proof. When republicans were getting into trouble, it was all over the news. At the very same time democrats were too. Hear about any of them?? nope.

When CBS ran the fabricated story about Bush, CBS acually had the nerve to say that it wasn't thier job to make sure the story was accurate, it was the viewers job to make sure it wasn't. R U kidding me.

I'll admit that both sides of the so-called news are biased. However I won't admit that Fox is as much so as the others, cuase it just isn't true. There is a big difference in leaning and siding.

Foxs leans, and the others side. But neither really reports.

[Predicto]

I watch O'reily and Hannity, and that isn't the news, those are political entertainment programs.

And Chris Matthews is news?

If I watch any news, it is fox and only for the duration of a commercial before I have to switch back to the program I was originally watching before they went to a commercail.

That misses the point anyway. His comment shows the level of stupidity that news has lowered to. Instead of reporting the news, they are activily supporting a candidate. If they can be so blatant about it, than how I can I be sure they aren't lying about other things they "claim" to report on as being truthful, since they prove thier bias out in the open.

Assuming that this is true, how is this any different than Rush, Hannity, Beck or the rest of them? Other than that you don't like the viewpoint, of course.

[81artmonk]

And Chris Matthews is news?

Assuming that this is true, how is this any different than Rush, Hannity, Beck or the rest of them? Other than that you don't like the viewpoint, of course.

It's different because people consider him news