The painful superficiality of Chris Matthews
August 04, 2009 8:44 am ET by Jamison Foser
Chris Matthews spends much of each Hardball broadcast spouting off about things he doesn’t understand, and making pronouncements about The Way Things Are that just don’t make sense. Here he is talking about federal funding for abortion, for example:
The Hyde Amendment, which we all know about, says no federal dollar can pay for anybody’s abortion, for the obvious reason: people who are opposed to abortion don’t want to have to pay for it, directly or indirectly, as taxpayers.
No. No, that is obviously not the reason.
Plenty of people are opposed to the death penalty and wars of choice, and the Department of Agriculture, and studies about the mating habits of fruit flies and incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders and membership in the UN -- and they don’t want to have to pay for those things, directly or indirectly, as taxpayers.
And yet they do pay for them. There is no “Hyde Amendment” preventing the government from paying for any of those things.
The Hyde Amendment’s ban on federal funding of abortion does not exist -- cannot logically exist -- simply because people who oppose abortion don’t want to pay for it. If that were the way things worked, we literally would not have a government.
No, the Hyde Amendment exists because the political and media establishment privilege opposition to abortion over countless other things that millions of Americans oppose. Like Chris Matthews just did, and like he has done in the past.
And yet Matthews sits there and insists that federal funding of abortion is not allowed simply because “people who are opposed to abortion don’t want to have to pay for it,” apparently not grasping the obvious implications of the silly notion that the government doesn’t fund things some people don’t want to pay for.
If you think this is all just semantics, take a look at the following two passages:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: The Hyde Amendment, which we all know about, says no federal dollar can pay for anybody’s abortion, for the obvious reason: people who are opposed to abortion don’t want to have to pay for it, directly or indirectly, as taxpayers.
BIZARRO CHRIS MATTHEWS: The Hyde Amendment, which we all know about, says no federal dollar can pay for anybody’s abortion, even though it is a legal medical procedure, and even though collective funding for things individual taxpayers may oppose is inherent in the very concept of government.
Is there any doubt whatsoever that the second version would give people a clearer understanding of the situation? Is there any doubt at all that the first version is slanted in favor of the anti-abortion position?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I like "Hardball" & I watch it every Night.
No man can be perfect all the time.
Chris Matthews does "Speak Truth To Power" & with me That's Just Fine.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
1) Liberals owe no one an "apology" - we're the ones sayiung "i told you so!"
2) Mathews is no liberal.
I appreciate the fact that Foser calls him out on his "superficiality." I follow politics so thoroughly that I struggle when I cannot find somebody in the TV-news business I can trust.
Before you speak to power, you need to do your homework and get your facts straighten up. For example, in the health care debate regarding euthanasia, Chris asks his guests questions based on rumors and speculation. I wonder why he (or his producers) doesn't check the information as it is written in the committee bills before asking his questions.
Buchanan reminds me of a punch drunk racist fighting to hide his George Wallace,Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond views on a progressive network.
I die laughing watching him every night waiting for that Imus moment.
For broadcasters to succeed they've got to know their audience, and if your audience is the American public you need to know that Americans are entirely ambivalent about abortion. It is, as we all know, a legal procedure (whether it's a legal MEDICAL procedure is a question I'll take up later) but I challenge you to name another legal activity that more people have more reservations about.
You say, "Plenty of people are opposed to the death penalty and wars of choice". Add my name to that 'plenty' and take my word for the fact that I long for the day when Americans are as disdainful of war and of executions as they are of abortion. When that day arrives, you will notice that broadcasters privilege opposition to international aggression and to the death penalty as baldly as they currently privilege opposition to abortion.
Opposition to abortion is genuine. It's not 'trumped up' by powerful corporate forces that manipulate people's perception of things they don't totally understand. People understand what pregnancy means and they understand what abortion means. The typical American doesn't need to get marching orders from the Right Wing Conspirators for it to occur to her/him to complain when media outlets normalize the procedure by denying the fact that it's fraught with moral overtones.
There is a huge segment of our population that believes that abortion is wrong and that prohibiting abortion is also wrong. The Pro-Choice side tries to claim that group as its own on the grounds that it opposes prohibition. The Pro-Life side tries to claim that group as its own on the grounds that it believes abortion is immoral. The group sides with the 'Choice' side and makes it a majority when Pro-Lifers threaten to make abortion a crime; but it sides with the 'anti-abortion' side when those on the Choice side insist that it's a normal medical procedure. It's not. When you broadcast to Americans you broadcast to people who believe that abortion is in no way similar to bona fide health care interventions.
Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice