Chris Matthews

[Desert Rat]

At least he came out and didn't hide his feelings...

Wow, just wow

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/214673.html

[Diggin' Bear]

Wow. I mean, at least Olbermann tried to hide his a little bit, but Chris Matthews just stepped on it.

In it.

Whatever.

MSNBC has lost it totally.

[Desert Rat]

Even if you consider him a commentator....he is crossing the line.

MSNBC is just a PR firm now.

[ShakAttack]

Gawd...why are you grown-ups trying so hard to make a mountain out of a mole hill??

Grow up. For God's sake. :rolleyes:

[The Thrill]

Totally wrong of Matthews to say. Journalists shouldn't take a side on-air.

But even better was the linked video on the side about the liveshot where the reporter smelled marijuana. (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214913) :p

[wx or not]

Totally wrong of Matthews to say. Journalists shouldn't take a side on-air.
There's the rub: Matthews is not a journalist. He's an pundit PR man.

[Kace]

When he mentions being a GW Bush voter or defends McCain, everything's cool. On the other hand, selective outrage is still entertaining.

[Delta Dawn]

At least he came out and didn't hide his feelings...

Wow, just wow

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/214673.html

No different than Tony Snow. Don't recall the outrage then.

His patriotic admission is no different than anything Sean Hannity has done for the past I don't know how many years.

Who here is now or has been crying about that?

Good for Chris.

[Kace]

I think it only matters if it goes against your own bias.

[Delta Dawn]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=209408&title=chris-wallace

Daily show interview with Chris Wallace. Good fun interview.

Watch the Fox news clips for the best comedy. And they pass it off nightly as journalism.

And a couple of slimeballs here want to cry becuase Chris Matthews said he wants to use his little cable talk show to help the President?

Please.

[CKMD]

For the first time ever, I started watching MSNBC the past few weeks and loved it!
It is completely liberal sided.
What makes it different than FOX? Why can't they do the opposite of FOX. Just admit, move on and let the sheep follow. it worked for FOX.
Enough is enough in this world of so called "un-bias" MSNBC or FOX.
Call it what it is...and move on.
CNN remains neutral.

It's time to focus the market and keep your viewers...giving them the product they want to see and hear...look at Talk Radio and that sucess.

When you do "News", you call it news and be unbiased. Fox does it. When they get switch to O'Leiley and Crappity, we know what were going to get.

[Produce man]

Another no-brainer for anyone with a clue about where BSNBC stands.

[Desert Rat]

Fox is just as bad on the right...

As long as everyone admits that there are cable networks that are conservative and liberal in their bias that's fine.

The problem here is that people aren't willing to admit it.

So do the posters here agree, besides CKMD, that news networks are skewed left and right?

[Nanook of the North]

I've never been a fan of Matthews. Never been a fan of Fox News either. The right-sided slant they've had for years has always bothered me. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with pandering to a certain type of audience. MSNBC is smart to lean left because they are so distant in the ratings, maybe they can pick some left-leaners and increase the ratings.

For us journalists at least there is CNN...although we could argue into the next millenium whether they are slanted one way or the other.

Chris Matthews is probably kicking himself today...but then again when you're a blathering idiot you're bound to have s*** come out of your mouth someday.

[Produce man]

FOX commentary is skewed right, but I've yet to see where Shep, for example, is anything but objective. (And don't get me started on Fox and Friends. I can't stand those asshats)

MSNBC is over the top left.

[Cheeky]

Journalist? What's that? I don't know anymore, do I. This morning, I heard Joe Scarborough refer to himself as a journalist. Some of us had to go to journalism school in order to make that claim. Journalism has become a joke, and I blame Rupert Murdoch.

~Cheeky

[Gail sirens]

Maybe he'll get a cabinet post:
Dept. Of BS

[Desert Rat]

Journalism has become a joke, and I blame Rupert Murdoch.

~Cheeky

Actually the blame should go to "60 Minutes" and Al Primo...

60 Minutes showed networks that you can make a healthy profit with a news show.

Al Primo was the man who brought the "Eyewitness News" concept to WABC in the early 70's....which put style on an equal par with content.

Nature took its course on both concepts to where we are now.

[CKMD]

FOX commentary is skewed right, but I've yet to see where Shep, for example, is anything but objective. (And don't get me started on Fox and Friends. I can't stand those asshats)

MSNBC is over the top left.

No...both are over the top for either side. The NEWS portions are not biased.
he Commentary segments are.

Rat: I'm just talking cable Networks. I have yet to see proof the real nets are biased.

[Desert Rat]

Oops, meant cable networks...

[adam & doctor drew]

colossal blowhard.

[Delta Dawn]

colossal blowhard.

Says the colossal blowhard.

[adam & doctor drew]

Says the colossal blowhard.

ouch, that would really hurt...... if I had any idea who you were (or cared).

[sandwichpick]

The problem here isn't Fox or CNN, or MSNBC. The problem is that there are folks on both sides that call themselves journalists, when what they are doing so clearly is not. I have no problem with Rush, Hannity, Matthews, or Olbermann doing their thing, bringing in ratings, and making piles of money. The problem is when this is done under the guise of journalism. Journalists are becoming a nice little niche in the broadcast industry and nothing more. It really is sad.

[Delta Dawn]

ouch, that would really hurt...... if I had any idea who you were (or cared).

Says the colossal blowhard.

[Diplomat]

If news analysis/opinion shows want to have a particular point of view, that is fine as long as they are up-front about it.

Chris Matthews came out of politics as did Tony Snow, so one knows where they are coming from. Ditto for George Stephanopolous.

MSNBC promotes "Countdown" as a "Newscast," which it is not. It's an opinion show. The O'Reilly Factor is promoted as a "news analysis" or "opinion-based" show, which it is.

Shepard Smith and his weekend counterparts anchor newscasts, as do Charles Gibson and Katie Couric.

[Delta Dawn]

The problem is when this is done under the guise of journalism.

Such as Fox News and their "fair and balanced" and "no spin zone" lies?

Limbaugh, Olbermann and Matthews do not lie about their positions. It's clear editorializing. Fox News is based upon and perpetuates lies. Only the sadly gullible accept it as journalism. See above for proof.

[Kace]

Wait, Chris Matthews is a journalist?

[Delta Dawn]

Wait, Chris Matthews is a journalist?

He's a talk show host. The topic is politics.

[Produce man]

Matthews is nothing more than a schill for the Obamatrons. It's "Hardball" if the guest is a conservative. It's "Wiffle ball" for libs.

[Brooklyn]

Matthews is nothing more than a schill for the Obamatrons. It's "Hardball" if the guest is a conservative. It's "Wiffle ball" for libs.

And it'd be "no balls" if you were a guest, eh? :shifty:

[southwesternguy]

If news analysis/opinion shows want to have a particular point of view, that is fine as long as they are up-front about it.

Chris Matthews came out of politics as did Tony Snow, so one knows where they are coming from. Ditto for George Stephanopolous.

MSNBC promotes "Countdown" as a "Newscast," which it is not. It's an opinion show. The O'Reilly Factor is promoted as a "news analysis" or "opinion-based" show, which it is.

Shepard Smith and his weekend counterparts anchor newscasts, as do Charles Gibson and Katie Couric.

There shouldn't be any problem with this. A host can say/do whatever they want on a talk/opinion show. Think Oprah, John Stewart, The View.

I heard some neo-con radio guy today crying foul because Oprah didn't have Sarah Palin on her show because Oprah is pro Obama. So what? It's her show, she can have or not have anyone she chooses.

I occasionally watch many of these shows, both liberal and conservative. It's painfully obvious where the host is coming from 30 seconds into the program.

Why does anyone have their panties in a bunch over what a talk show host says?

[Kace]

Why does anyone have their panties in a bunch over what a talk show host says?

Anger brings us happiness.

[Produce man]

Why does anyone have their panties in a bunch over what a talk show host says?I prefer boxer-briefs, but whatever you like, I guess.:cool:

[Brooklyn]

I prefer boxer-briefs, but whatever you like, I guess.:cool:

More room for you to stuff rolled-up socks in? I'm sure you're the "big man" at your station because of it, eh?

[Cheeky]

Why does anyone have their panties in a bunch over what a talk show host says?

It's not a matter of one having one's panties in a bunch over talk show host commentary. It's that these hosts (particularly Matthews, O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough, et al) then proceed to deceive listeners and viewers by calling themselves journalists. Yes, O'Reilly is a journalist by training, but his now an "opinion journalist." He analyses news and events, but from a particular viewpoint, which true journalists do not do.

I posted earlier that I blame Murdoch. Perhaps he should not be blamed. After all, he is an businessman. I blame uninformed consumers of news who don't know the difference between the editorial pages of a paper and the straight news. Murdoch saw an opportunity to shape people's opinions - people who cannot think for themselves, or need to have their views validated by individuals they idolise.

How confusing it must be to the unsuspecting news consumer when papers they trust, like the New York Times and the Washington Times print stories based on anonymous sources, gossip, and innuendo on their front pages (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_/ai_n21014222 ).

~Cheeky

[Cheeky]

Matthews is nothing more than a schill for the Obamatrons. It's "Hardball" if the guest is a conservative. It's "Wiffle ball" for libs.


Well, he certainly had hard balls when reporting this! He was practically gushing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2301/2457845397_c863ae61cb_o.jpg

~Cheeky

[Cheeky]

If news analysis/opinion shows want to have a particular point of view, that is fine as long as they are up-front about it.



See... that's just it, isn't it. It's not just the analysis and opinion shows that have a particular point of view. There is an increasing blur between straight news reporting and "viewsreporting." News anchors on both cable and local news frequently express their opinions when reporting by sighing, shaking their heads, tsk-tsking, and so on.

~Cheeky

[Another side]

He analyses news and events, but from a particular viewpoint, which true journalists do not do.

~Cheeky

So, then, those who write editorials for print or broadcast, or columns for newspapers and/or magazines ... are not "true journalists"?

You're being a little harsh, my friend.

[Cheeky]

So, then, those who write editorials for print or broadcast, or columns for newspapers and/or magazines ... are not "true journalists"?

You're being a little harsh, my friend.

I should rephrase. Editorial columnists (Maureen Dowd, George Will, Krauthammer... journalists all) do not pretend to be objective. Hosts like Matthews, O'Reilly, and Scarborough toss the word "journalist" around to confuse unsuspecting viewers into thinking that they are objectively reporting the news and simply providing analysis, which could not be farther from the truth.

~Cheeky

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I prefer boxer-briefs...

Of course you do. Easier access for your boyfriend.

[Diplomat]

I should rephrase. Editorial columnists (Maureen Dowd, George Will, Krauthammer... journalists all) do not pretend to be objective. Hosts like Matthews, O'Reilly, and Scarborough toss the word "journalist" around to confuse unsuspecting viewers into thinking that they are objectively reporting the news and simply providing analysis, which could not be farther from the truth.

~Cheeky

O'Reilly makes clear the show is an analysis and opinion-drive news program. MSNBC bills Countdown as a "newscast."

[Another side]

I should rephrase. Editorial columnists (Maureen Dowd, George Will, Krauthammer... journalists all) do not pretend to be objective. Hosts like Matthews, O'Reilly, and Scarborough toss the word "journalist" around to confuse unsuspecting viewers into thinking that they are objectively reporting the news and simply providing analysis, which could not be farther from the truth.

~Cheeky

We agree. Now, since I'm on a 4-game winning streak and this complaint won't be viewed as sour grapes ... is this a good time to mention that FOX Fantasy Football is the worst of the Fantasy Football leagues? Lousy stats, slow to load and frequent messages that say "This page is not available" or some such crap.

This probably isn't the place, is it?

[cong]

O'Reilly makes clear the show is an analysis and opinion-drive news program. MSNBC bills Countdown as a "newscast."

he also made clear last week in answering emails that his program reports the news down the middle, unbiased. mr. o'reilly is his own worst enemy.

i don't have any problem with fox news being conservative. i even don't mind the the subtle ways that brit hume and the rest dig at the democrats, including all the snide and snark. but why hide it? why the pretense of "fair and balanced"? they should be proud that they're conservative and no. 1 in the ratings.

[southwesternguy]

It's not a matter of one having one's panties in a bunch over talk show host commentary. It's that these hosts (particularly Matthews, O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough, et al) then proceed to deceive listeners and viewers by calling themselves journalists. Yes, O'Reilly is a journalist by training, but his now an "opinion journalist." He analyses news and events, but from a particular viewpoint, which true journalists do not do.

I posted earlier that I blame Murdoch. Perhaps he should not be blamed. After all, he is an businessman. I blame uninformed consumers of news who don't know the difference between the editorial pages of a paper and the straight news. Murdoch saw an opportunity to shape people's opinions - people who cannot think for themselves, or need to have their views validated by individuals they idolise.

How confusing it must be to the unsuspecting news consumer when papers they trust, like the New York Times and the Washington Times print stories based on anonymous sources, gossip, and innuendo on their front pages (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_/ai_n21014222 ).

~Cheeky

I completely understand what you're saying, but do viewers really not know the difference between "Hardball", "O'Reilly Factor", "Fox and Friends", and a real, objective newscast.

I agree that it's not OK to blur the lines. Not ever. But the title of most analysis and opinion shows are pretty much a dead giveaway. Let's not always underestimate our viewers' intelligence.

[Cheeky]

Now, since I'm on a 4-game winning streak and this complaint won't be viewed as sour grapes ... is this a good time to mention that FOX Fantasy Football is the worst of the Fantasy Football leagues? Lousy stats, slow to load and frequent messages that say "This page is not available" or some such crap.

This probably isn't the place, is it?

No love. Neither the time, nor the place.

:D

~Cheeky