Matthews' "Oh God" vs. Santelli's rant: Which told us more about the press?
Two turbo TV talkers recently made news with on-air comments that seemed to broadcast genuine, unscripted emotions; comments which then set off all kinds of arguments about policy and the press. One featured a brief, disparaging remark tossed out by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and aimed at a prominent Republican, while the other consisted of a nearly five-minute anti-Obama rant, by CNBC's Rick Santelli.
But the reaction to the outbursts told us a lot more about the state of the press than the actual comments themselves.
The Matthews incident, critics claimed, offered a glimpse into the soul of the Beltway press. It came when he muttered "Oh God" contemptuously under his breath -- but into a live mic -- just as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appeared on television Tuesday night, February 24, to rebut President Obama's prime-time speech. (See the clip of the incident here.) In terms of journalism, that kind of thing is a major no-no and only adds to an air of unprofessionalism that all news outlets ought to avoid.
Matthews later explained the "Oh God" comment by suggesting he was struck by the "peculiar stagecraft" that went into Jindal's address and by the way he seemed to be trying to emulate a White House address to the nation.
In truth, if Matthews had made that observation in complete sentences on-air at MSNBC at the time nobody would have said boo, because it would have been a legitimate, albeit trivial, point to make. And of course, the real irony was that if Matthews had uttered "Oh God" after Jindal spoke, nobody would have cared, since almost everyone, on both sides of the political aisle, thought Jindal's address had been a failure. Matthews' "Oh God" actually captured the nearly universal reaction to Jindal's rhetorical misadventure.
But Chris Matthews did what he did, and as a practice I don't defend him, so I'm not going to endorse him in this instance either. No way, no how. And if people want to chastise him for being unprofessional in his role as quasi-news anchor that night, and if MSNBC needs to take some lumps for his embarrassing miscue, then so be it.
But that doesn't mean we should take seriously the idea shopped around by conservatives that Matthews' split-second misjudgment somehow drew back the curtain on the Beltway press corps and revealed its latent liberal bias, or that because Matthews sort of whispered "Oh God" under his breath, viewers heard what Matthews really thought. (As if Matthews actually has a filter that keeps him from saying out loud, and on the air, every thought he has in his head.)
Still, those accusations came pouring in with predictable swiftness. The "Oh God" moment represented a "naked display of bias," whined Media Research Center senior news analyst Geoffrey Dickens. "More media bias," complained the far-right site Scared Monkeys. "The fact that these people cannot provide just what would be considered common decency is amazing. This is a news network, or at least it is supposed to be."
An "embarrassment," claimed Hot Air.
But here's my point: If Matthews was an embarrassment, then what do you call CNBC's Rick Santelli? He's the B-list reporter -- and avowed John McCain supporter who last September announced the U.S. economy was "healthy" -- who, on February 19, responded to Obama's plan to rescue bad mortgages by broadcasting from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He delivered a caustic, disrespectful harangue ("President Obama, are you listening?") about the unfairness of Americans having to bailout "loser" homeowners, in which Santelli suggested Obama's bailout plan would lead the country toward communism. All the while, nearby Chicago traders in the background cheered Santelli on.
Against the backdrop of that performance, the idea that the Matthews live-mic moment should be pounced on as an "aha" moment for the unprofessional press corps is absurd. Not when Rick Santelli, a reporter for CNBC, went on live TV and uncorked an anti-Obama rant and then paraded around on right-wing radio shows for days while concocting stories about being targeted by the White House. Despite crossing all normal bounds of journalism, Santelli was celebrated in the press as a populist. (Y'know, the Drexel Burnham Lambert kind.) And CNBC seemed to do everything it could to market and hype the rant. (Imagine if MSNBC replayed Matthews' "Oh God" clip incessantly, bragging about how Matthews had "touched a nerve" with Americans.)
In terms of revealing deep truths about the corporate media, I'd suggest Santelli's off-kilter tirade, followed by his puffed-up prancing around, and the press corps that cheered him on, told us a helluva lot more abut the press than did Matthews' split-second "Oh God" utterance.
Indeed, why did the press dub Matthews' remark a "blooper," yet Santellli's rant was crowned a "populist" "shot heard around the world?" How was it that Matthews' split-second lapse of judgment supposedly provided us with all kinds of insight into the mindset of the Beltway media (i.e. they're liberal), yet Santelli's right-wing, anti-Obama, anti-working class rant did not? Matthews made a regrettable on-air mistake, but Santelli spoke the unvarnished truth of the masses? Please.
And make no mistake, it was the corporate press that rushed in to crown Santelli the populist king. His hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, reported that the CNBC rant "had given voice to many unhappy with where the bailout seems headed." But as blogger Will Bunch noted, the Tribune article didn't quote anybody, aside from Beltway pundits, to back up that claim.
Like the Tribune, NPR's Mara Liasson didn't need any actual proof to know that Santelli had tapped into a "populist backlash." The New York Times dutifully announced that Santelli's self-described rant had ignited a "populist backlash" and "sparked a new debate about assisting homeowners in danger of foreclosure." The Los Angeles Times stressed how Santelli "unleashed a spontaneous explosion of anger." Yeah, among traders. But a "spontaneous explosion of anger" among everyday Americans? No way.
Just because Santelli may have touched a nerve with a small pocket of six-figured media elites (not to mention the right-wing kooks), that didn't mean the CNBC talker spoke for most voters. Wasn't that obvious when he claimed mid-rant that the all-white, all-male traders who surrounded him on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange represented a "cross-section of America?" Or when he turned to face the trading floor, extended his arms to the six-figure salary employees and announced, "This is America!"
Rather than cringe at the advertised disconnect (only at CNBC do traders represent the "silent majority"), the press claimed Santelli spoke for the masses. That we were suddenly a "nation of Santellis," as Politico suggested. And in what may have been one of the most embarrassing news judgment calls in years, NBC's Nightly News led with the Santelli outburst, treating it as, y'know, news. (Of course, the judgment call was even creepier considering how the Nightly News shamelessly flacked for its sister channel.)
Here's how the Nightly News framed the report:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: The debate over using billions in taxpayer dollars to help homeowners in trouble spilled out onto live television today. CNBC's Trish Regan is here with us tonight for more on this. Trish, good evening.
REGAN: Good evening, Brian. It certainly did spill out onto live TV. We heard loud and clear from CNBC's Rick Santelli, who expressed something millions of Americans paying their mortgages on time may now feel. ... The day started with the populist shot heard 'round the world.
Look how Regan did her best to claim Santelli spoke for the masses with the breathless "shot heard around the world" language, as if the CNBC talker's rant doubled as some sort of clarion call for justice. Give Regan credit, though; at least she slipped in the qualifier "may" to describe how people felt, since Regan on that night had absolutely no idea what "millions of Americans" thought about the just-announced mortgage bailout plan.
That was Thursday, February 19. Three days later, while appearing on Meet the Press, Regan's CNBC colleague Becky Quick had no idea how Americans felt, and all the qualifiers were gone. Santelli had touched a nerve with Americans -- period. End of discussion, as the NBC News family went all in promoting Santelli's ignorant outburst. On Sunday, Meet the Press host David Gregory announced, "Mr. Santelli's criticism is shared by a lot of people," although he cited no proof to back up his claim. And Quick suggested that "the reason this probably picked up steam is he touched on something, touched a nerve that lots and lots of people around the country are feeling."
Did Santelli's anti-mortgage-bailout critique touch a nerve among Beltway elite insiders? It sure did. Did it touch a nerve "around the country?" There's no evidence of that. But there is polling data that suggests the exact opposite.
Critiquing the press last week, blogger Glenn Greenwald noted that, "No matter how compelling the evidence is that the country has turned decisively against Republicans and Republicanism, the establishment media will just invent storylines out of whole cloth to claim that they are widely popular."
Greenwald's use of the word "invent" was no exaggeration, because that very day, February 24, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell, plugging the Santelli story, claimed on-air that a New York Times poll substantiated the CNBC talker's claim about simmering American anger over the White House's proposed mortgage assistance effort.
Said O'Donnell:
They [the Times] also pointed out that people were very skeptical about the home foreclosure plan that the president just put forth, that people are concerned that it's not fair, I mean, sort of like this rant people said was on CNBC the other day the other day, the idea that its not fair that it's benefitting some people and not other people.
In fact, the MSNBC anchor got it exactly backward: the Times poll found that a solid majority, 61 percent, favored the White House's plan to stem home foreclosures. Subsequent polls showed even stronger support for the initiative that Santelli railed against and was cheered on by the press. An ABC/Washington Post poll indicated 64 percent of Americans supported the plan. And that percentage shot up even higher, to 76 percent, following Obama's prime-time address to the country last week.
Santelli, quite literally, was completely out of touch with voters -- yet the corporate press held him up as a spokesman for mainstream America.
Now tell me again how it was Matthews' two-word "Oh God" utterance, and not Santelli's ignorant rant, that revealed uncomfortable truths about today's media mindset.
In defense of Chris Matthews, a live microphone picked up a remark that was not intended for public consumption. Matthews addressed his faux pas in a direct manner, explained it and moved on. I doubt that anyone's mind was changed about Chris Matthews or Bobby Jindal as a result. In the case of Rick Santelli, it was an intententional, although lunatic-sounding, rant...intended, no doubt, as much for the self-aggrandizement of Rick Santelli as it was for its substance as Santelli continued to gratuitously milk his notoriety for days afterwards. If Santelli's rant struck a populist chord I would suspect the chord was a minor one. All Santelli did was to gain a few fans among the far right wingers who are accustomed to being spoken to in the form of rants.
Personally, I feel that Matthews only uttered what many of us where thinking...
I heard Matthews say it - and I agreed wholeheartedly.
I agree with you...in fact, I uttered a non-complimentary remarks at the screen, as well, when Jindal walked out. But as a professional broadcaster I'm sure Matthews wishes he had not said what he did into a live mike. My point was that IMO the two episodes speak more about the two individuals, Matthews and Santelli, than about the media in general.
Don't forget, too, that most of the right-wing media people thought it was Olbermann who made that remark ! So they were already primed to jump on it.
But it wasn't a populist chord that was struck; it was an elitist chord. Those wingnut who took time off their jobs to join the "tea party protest" (an absurdly ahistorical misapropriation of the term) clearly had no idea what they were protesting. They were duped by people like Santelli. Any appearance of populism was an illusion. Just look at the signs that people were holding up at those protests. It's all kneejerk gibberish. They're foolishing protesting against their own best interests, while the rich stand to reap any benefits that result.
"But it wasn't a populist chord that was struck; it was an elitist chord." - clams casino
Well and concisely put, clams.
ya but "minor chord" is funnier
I don't understand so much skepticism about Matthews' explanation. The "oh, God" seemed like something had caught him almost by surprise. Jindal is a known commodity. Matthews knew he was speaking. Matthews knows Jindal. Matthews doesn't think much of Jindal. There had to be something that sparked that exclamation out of him. I wouldn't utter, "Oh God" if Bush came on TV as scheduled, as much as I loathe seeing his face on TV. But if Bush came out wearing a grass skirt and a pink ribbon in his air, yeah, THAT would get an "Oh God, " or more likely "WTF???" out of me. I think there was something about Jindal's "entrance" that spurred Matthews' remark. Everything is about stagecraft to Tweety, how something looks, how someone plays the game. I don't think there's anything about the mundane politician Jindal that would have gotten that much animation out of Tweety. But seeing him come out from around the corner in that fancy antebellum mansion with that pulled-off-the-Christmas-tree candy cane tie just screamed "loser" at Chris Matthews and it just came out, the same way that seeing Cher or Cyndi Lauper walk out on stage would get a response from the late Mr. Blackwell. It's Matthews as entertainment critic more than Matthews as political advocate.
Precisely. I don't think Chris Matthews has very strong political beliefs. Right-wingers think he's this giant liberal, but he generally just goes where the charisma and style points are. He's very typical of the beltway establishment journalist.
For all we know, Matthews could have been answering a collegue who asked him, "What's the name of that movie with 'George Burns' and 'John Denver'?"
Why am I the only one who thinks of these things?
You're not the only one. Everyone posting before you is trying to make an excuse for unprofessional behavior. But, what do you expect from the MSM that leans so far to the left? And what would you expect from a site that leans even farther that way?
and if Krauthammer, Malkin, Beck, Billo, the Mannity or any of the rest of those meat puppets had said that then you would be defending them to the death.
And that's the best you can do when defending unprofessional behavior? Well, that seems typical ... and expected.
philib, it's you! Persistence, huh? My disagreement with you is you're making that tired old left MSM argument. Ain't true, never was true. Did you read the article? No comment on the Santelli side?
i never said what matthews said wasn't unprofessional. i simply stated that had one of the above listed morons had done somethign similar i believe you would not call them out for it.
I think it's entirely feasible that Santelli's Social Darwinist tantrum was a carefully planned GOP talking points barrage. It was certainly picked up quickly by the usual suspects.
A broader point that I have noticed.... very few of the Millionaire Pundits seem willing to advocate or even entertain the more progressive side of this issue. The "Liberal Media Elite" are conspicuously silent when these stalwart champions of the beleaguered plutocracy are spouting their Trickle Down Crap.
"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." - anonymous
I can't understand how Santelli wasn't fired for his tirade.
"I can't understand how Santelli wasn't fired for his tirade."
For the same sort of reasons that Glen Beck got his own show on FoxNoise?
Although... I find it somewhat irritating that Olbermann never mentioned Santelli's rant or made his the WPITW? Or did he and I missed it?
Interesting that the rightwing media is willing to jump down on Chris Matthews throat for an explained and apologized "Oh God" moment and yet little to nothing said about a five minute rant and several days on rightwing talk to milk it for as much as possible...
Yeah... right... the corporate owned media is 'liberal' biased... my butt!
I, too, was disappointed that Kieth Olbermann didn't mention it. Apparently they have a policy not to criticize other MSNBC or CNBC shows. To be fair, I'd say FOX has the same policy.
Although... I find it somewhat irritating that Olbermann never mentioned Santelli's rant or made his the WPITW? Or did he and I missed it?
Capt, you missed it.
Olbermann named Santelli "Worse" on the Feb. 20th show. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29308899
I stand corrected as well.
Me too.
Orthopedic shoes...
"Capt, you missed it.
Olbermann named Santelli "Worse" on the Feb. 20th show"
That explains it.... Feb 20th is my daughters B-Day... we were not home and I apparently also did not watch it on MSNBC.com... I now have... thanks for the link pearlene.
actually olbermann did respond and named Santelli the bronze for worst person in the world. complete with a prefaced apology
Why on earth would he be fired?? Why does saying what he feels.what many of us feel......make him a WPITW world???? I will never understand how you libs think. After all these years of so called opression under Bush, the first thing you want to do is seee someone who does not agree with you fired. The hypocrisy is amazing!!!!!
The same reason that Donahue was fired for opposing the war. The news should be the news and opinion should be opinion. Those that do opinion on news shows should be fired as unprofessional journalists. If this were to be the case, everyone over at Fox News would be cleaned out. Perchance to dream.
Obviously you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Fox News unprofessional? Look at this study done by The Pew Research Center http://journalism.org/node/13437 and tell us all how unprofessional/unbalanced Fox News is. I guess when all the news that is being reported by all the news sources is skewed, the only one that isn't is the one that 'appears' to be skewed.
Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Even the most con mouth-breathers will admit this. Instead, they defend it by saying it's a counterbalance to the mythical "liberal mainsteam media". There's a special place in the wing-nut hall of fame for cons who still claim Fox is truly fair and balanced.
"Fox News is the propa..blah bla blah... bah baaah baah." Well you're smart enough to understand that not everything on Fox news is news. Now let's work on the difference between commentators and journalists. Fox knows the difference, their commentators like Glenn, Bill and Sean don't pretend to report the news, if you watched instead of just regurgitating that same liberal sheep diatribe, you would hear them say that they are commentators and that what they say is their opinion. The problem in the mainstream media today is there are a lot of commentators posing as journalists and this should be alarming to everyone. The article that I posted earlier http://journalism.org/node/13437 illustrates this problem well. When Pew did this study they weren't watching the commentators like O'reilly, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Matthews etc... They were looking at the actual news being reported by those stations' journalists. Look at those data and the graphs and tell me that the actual so-called journalism (not commentary) we are seeing on msnbc, cnn and the msm as a whole is not slanted. It is frightening that people are hearing commentary reported as real news, Fox does not do this. Fox is the most balanced news reporting and this study is my proof. Where is yours.
I don't know if you noticed, but McCain's campaign was disastrous. Wouldn't any reflection of his innumerable errors be "negative" coverage? Did you notice that they said Biden got more negative coverage than positive on both MSNBC and CNN? How does that fit in with the idea that these networks are biased towards the left?
Actually, you wouldn't have ANY news reporters who work if that were the standard. I have never seen a news reporter simply report the news without some kind of left/right qualifier added in to sway the masses.
well not nationally thats for sure.
being from Scranton, ive never heard anyone from WNEP-16, WBRE-28 ever give any kind of bent and just report straight news.
interesting side note. and i never knew this until recently.
Billo the clown got his start here at WNEP-16.
I googled WNEP-16 and find they are located in Pennsylvania. Isn't that the state where it's own congressman calls it one of the most racist states in the nation? Murtha, wasn't it? Not much you can say about BOR, if the state prides itself on producing racist hatred.
"being from Scranton, ive never heard anyone from WNEP-16, WBRE-28 ever give any kind of bent and just report straight news."
"I googled WNEP-16 and find they are located in Pennsylvania."
Nice work, Sherlock.
See? I told you even a liberal could figure out how to fix a simple cp glitch.
And I told you it comes and goes.
wrong district genius. murtha is from western pa out near pittsburgh,
Scranton's district has Paul Kanjorski for our congressman.
Murtha said the state is racist. I hope your other congressman isn't as racist as Murtha. Most of America doesn't put up with racism. I guess in Pa. it's ok.
i don't agree he should be fired. it was inappropriate for santelli to do that, because it brings his own objectivity into question, but i don't think it was something he needs to be fired for.
an excellent point, if that were the standard, then nearly everyone at MSNBC, Fox Noise, CNN would be long gone
Oh please. He wasn't named WPITW for his rant. He was named WPITW because he was twisting (or allowing G. Gordon Liddy to twist) a perfectly inocuous remark by Robert Gibbs into some sort of a personal threat to him. And he knew damn well better. He was just milking the publicity for all it was worth.
val nothing against you but your a bit mistaken. keith doled out the broze to santelli on the 20th.
then proceeded to give Liddy the silver on the 24th because of Liddy's interview with santelli
I think you might have misread val's comment.
Val wasn't stating that Santelli wasn't named WPITW, but the reason for him being named as WPITW.
i was pointing out that he recieved a bronze for the rant, and liddy got silver for going tin foil hat conspiracy, as keith said it.
maybe i am misreading it. im kinda tired.
He's a reporter not a commentator. That rant was completely inappropriate. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with him or not. As I asked on another thread can you imagine a weatherman going on a 5 minute rant about global warming and not getting fired?
All I have to say to the press is, "You stay classy."
Ron Burgundy out.
No defense for Matthews. His asininity, banality, and general ennui-causing panting and pandering show that he ought to be doing something else. I am still nausated by the comment during the campaign about the warm feeling rising up his leg and therefore cannot take much he says without gagging.
I have no sympathy for anyone in the broadcast business who does not treat a mike as live all the time...it is as if there were a pistol that were not treated as loaded and when it went off and winged someone...no excuses, kiddies.
The Santelli remark struck a chord because the derriere-embracing of the rest of the talking heads whenever there is something said critical of either the President or the majority in the Congress no one seems to want to either report or analyse. The lack of intelligent reporting or analysis during the last administration was just as vomitous.
Matthews can say "oh God" all he wants to as can Hannity. Neither are worth watching or listening to. And being criticized by Olbermann is like being called ugly by a frog.
santelli is not the press, he's a bond trader.
No, that's not true. He used to be a trader, and now he's an editor and reporter for CNBC.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837966/
santelli is not the press, he's a bond trader. fmnanker87
You sure about that? Why do you think he isn't "the press"? I bet it's 'cause someone told you that and you didn't bother to check.
Cause I checked and according to CNBC -
RICK SANTELLI
CNBC On-Air Editor
Rick Santelli joined CNBC Business News as on-air editor in June 1999, reporting live from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. His focus is primarily on interest rates, foreign exchange, and the Federal Reserve.
A veteran trader and financial executive, Santelli has provided live reports on the markets in print and on local and national radio and television. He joined CNBC from the Institutional Financial Futures and Options at Sanwa Futures, L.L.C. There, he was a vice president handling institutional trading and hedge accounts for a variety of futures related products.
Prior to that, Santelli worked as vice president of Institutional Futures and Options at Rand Financial Services, Inc., served as managing director at the Derivative Products Group of Geldermann, Inc., and was Vice President in charge of Interest Rate Futures and Options at the Chicago Board of Trade for Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Santelli began his career in 1979 as a trader and order filler at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in a variety of markets including gold, lumber, CD's, T-bills, foreign currencies and livestock.
He is a graduate of the University of Illinois Champaign/Urbana with a Bachelor of Science degree. Santelli has been a member of both the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837966
He's a bond trader who is employed as an On-air Editor for CNBC. That makes him a member of the press.
He's not even a bond trader anymore.
He's a bond trader who is employed as an On-air Editor for CNBC. That makes him a member of the press.
So the guy who sweeps the floors at CNBC is also a member of the press?
Rick Santelli has no prior education or experience in journalism. He may know about financial issues, but his journalistic skills are sorely lacking...
awww schooled again
Get your facts straight....and read Santelli's rebutal about setting the record straight. .
i guess they never noticed the bromance that matthews had with bush after he landed on the aircraft carrier. he and ann coulter carried on about that uniform like they were discussing the hot high school quarterback.
Yeah, that was pretty awful. And then he and G. Gordon Liddy drooled over Bush's "package" -- a TV moment that still gives me nightmares. It makes Matthews' "thrill up my leg" Obamalove seem a mild flirtation by comparison. And remember, Chris voted for Bush, at least in 2000. I don't think he's confessed his choice for 2004.
Santelli sure don't speak for me. If Obama wants to use some of my tax dollars to fix this mortgage crisis....go for it. Just be smart about it.
Amateur hour at the media matters? Where do I start? The most revealing part of this article was when the author dismissed Matthews' remark with; oh, that's just how he is. Then he continues by attempting to demonize Santelli by calling him a B-list reporter and listing his history and a few stupid comments he made in the past (those stupid comments don't hold a candle to the asinine comments Matthews has made). The way this author attacked Santelli's so-called 'anti-Obama rant' reminded me of the Youtube guy crying because people wouldn't leave Brittney Spears alone. When are you going to break free of the mainstream press and stop describing a disagreement with Obama's policies an anti-Obama attack???? It would serve the author well to look up the word populist in the dictionary because that was exactly what Santelli's rant was. When 92% of homeowners were responsible and have to pay for 8% of homeowners' irresponsibility, it is absolutely the people (92%) that would agree with Santelli. Perhaps the author should do his homework or choose different career. B-list reporter indeed.
Snore. B-list criticism at it's best.
You, sir, are no populist, or you would certainly know that over 60% of Americans favor the homeowner assist plan. The rest can't understand it or are too self-centered to ever consider an expenditure that would help anyone but themselves.
And if you're here to criticize Boehlert, take a hike. He's the best.
Word is that Rick Santelli is issuing an apology to Rush Limbaugh in the event that his remarks could in any way be construed by the liberal media as denigrating Rush. Santelli will also reiterate that Rush Limbaugh is a great leader... ;>)
And to prove his fealty, he shall bite the head off a Marsh Mouse and clean Rush's golf clubs with his toothbrush.
Hail King Rush.
"But here's my point: If Matthews was an embarrassment, than what do you call CNBC's Rick Santelli?"
Not that any of you caught this question by the author of this thread, but I think you would call Santelli simply the same thing you call Matthews... an embarrassment. Although one comments ON AIR while the other comments OFF AIR. Which makes one more of an embarrassment than the other. At least one has large enough YKW's to say what he feels out loud, while the other prays no one hears what he says as if he has some giant lie going on and is afraid of the masses knowing how he really feels. So the answer to the "point" question is Santelli is a brave embarrassment, while Mathews is a chicken embarrassment.
Funny. The cons loved Matthews when he was in love with GWB's musky manly scent.
"Actually, you wouldn't have ANY news reporters who work if that were the standard. I have never seen a news reporter simply report the news without some kind of left/right qualifier added in to sway the masses."
Right. I bet poll data that favors the left would be a "qualifer added in to sway the masses".
brabs, you know there's a thing out there that can help you fix your computer problem. I'll let you know what it is if you ask.
Yes, and why would you think otherwise?
How do we stop the corporatist media? Seriously, they get away with out and out lies on a daily basis. They applaud the sanctimony and hypocrisy of the right. They get away with sexism, bigotry and general hateful adolescent behavior and yet the MSM is afraid to call them out or goes along with them. Brian Williams, Mika B and others give Rush "respect" and talk of admiring him. HUH!! Rush is a racist, sexist, overweight, drug using abusive creep and the MSM bows to him. SICK.
I had the best laugh in months,,When Cris Matthews said Oh God ;-)
Philib
"Yes, and why would you think otherwise?"
Because that's objective information, and has nothing to do with a reporter's subjective opinion. Sometimes issues and incidents are advantageous to one side or the other, and it doesn't show bias to reflect that reality to viewers.
How do I fix the "reply" problem, if you're being serious?
You mean like a poll that asks "do you think Pelosi is more of a sk*nk than Bush"? You think that would be objective information? I think it is another way to further ones ideals using fake data to show unscientific favoritism towards the ideals the pollster has in mind, then the reporter picks and chooses which poll to use as 'proof' of their statements.
As for your computer. I think I'll let your cohorts, on this site, give you the simple information you need to fix that problem.
"How do I fix the "reply" problem, if you're being serious?"
Before you even ask, I'll tell you why I won't. Because you can't even ask for simple help without being rude.
Kettle meet pot.
What an incredible a**!
Philib
"You mean like a poll that asks "do you think Pelosi is more of a sk*nk than Bush"? You think that would be objective information? I think it is another way to further ones ideals using fake data to show unscientific favoritism towards the ideals the pollster has in mind, then the reporter picks and chooses which poll to use as 'proof' of their statements."
When did that poll come out? What you're trying to tell me is that every single reporter you've ever seen includes something of that nature in their report?
"As for your computer. I think I'll let your cohorts, on this site, give you the simple information you need to fix that problem."
In other words, you have no idea how to fix it. That's what I figured.
"What you're trying to tell me is that every single reporter you've ever seen includes something of that nature in their report?"
No I'm not trying to tell you that. I'm saying that is the common and accepted practice of the MSM 'reporters'. Of course a poll like my example never came out (duhh). What it does is give an example of what a biased reporter will use as polling data when doing a report. They will pick and choose the poll that agrees with their position most closely. Don't you agree? Of course, if you can give me examples of a reporter giving poll data the shows the opposite of what they are reporting, you should.
"Before you even ask, I'll tell you why I won't. Because you can't even ask for simple help without being rude."
You've established the pattern that you are primarily interested in antagonizing people. Recognition of that pattern is not my fault. If you're straying from your usual mode of behavior and are really trying to be helpful, I would appreciate it.
Look, I offered, you promptly started name-calling. I don't think I'll pursue it any further.
Philib
"No I'm not trying to tell you that. I'm saying that is the common and accepted practice of the MSM 'reporters'. Of course a poll like my example never came out (duhh). What it does is give an example of what a biased reporter will use as polling data when doing a report. They will pick and choose the poll that agrees with their position most closely. Don't you agree? Of course, if you can give me examples of a reporter giving poll data the shows the opposite of what they are reporting, you should."
How do you know anyone's advocating a certain position, then? If the body of polling data has a result, then supposedly anyone who reports that has a bias. If you see someone picking an outlier poll, then that is one thing, but otherwise you are attributing motivation unfairly. Your assumption seems to be that whatever someone is reporting coincides with their personal views.
I didn't call you any names. Quit crying.
"I didn't call you any names. Quit crying." The good news is that MY computer works just fine.
",if you're being serious?" = liar ("In other words, you have no idea how to fix it. That's what I figured.")
Wow. You've taken being thin-skinned to Tommy-esque proportions.
"Your assumption seems to be that whatever someone is reporting coincides with their personal views."
Yes. That is correct. It would be interesting to see examples of reporters NOT doing that.
It happens all the time. I would even bet that some Fox News stories are slanted.
MSNBC and CNBC is affliated with NBC, which is owned by General Electric a major player in Military Industrial Complex (WAR is GOOD)! Stock market is Good!
"The good news is that MY computer works just fine"
"',if you're being serious?' = liar"
Thanks for proving my point. You're not serious because "MY computer works just fine". That's what you were going for all along. The fact is that you're not a helpful person by nature, phil. You can't blame people for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, especially when you confirm their suspicions shortly thereafter. Quit crying about it.
"Yes. That is correct. It would be interesting to see examples of reporters NOT doing that."
What proof would be possible? I'm not a mindreader. I see reporters doing their job everyday where I have no basis for questioning their objectivity. If you see a reason for doing so, it's up to you to provide evidence, it's not my job to prove a negative.
Your point? No, you can't accept there are those who offer to help, so you whine about the offer. Get one of your ultra-smart liberal freinds to fix your computer. Unless they all depend on right wingers to fix all their problems also. Then you might as well buy a new cp....and stimulate the economy. Try to make sure it's made in America, or it won't be our economy you stimulate.
"Your point? No, you can't accept there are those who offer to help, so you whine about the offer."
If Bruce, Jeter, Oscar, Thomp.Steve or others offered help, I'd accept it. You are not as trustworthy. I didn't whine about anything, I just question someone's motives when their behavior is inconsistent with their character. And rightfully so.
Didn't they public largely overall turne against Santelli and his hysterical claims about Obama's administration being out to "get" him?
Or was that just the blogosphere?
What's also odd is the spat between Limbaugh and Steele went national this morning on Good Morning America. It seems like the Repugs have decided to insane at once, but indubitably, the public still talks about the "whacko" liberal bloggers.
Actually I lived several years in Whacko Texas.
Reporters generally DON'T cherry pick polls, although a commentator might. A reporter cites the most recent poll(s), points out any discrepancies or similiarities between them, observe the MoE, and if only one poll is the most recent, whatever its results, will quote from some source in opposition that might question it's methodology.
Personally, I don't think there's much difference between a reporter and a commentator. One does it over the air, the other does it in print. Both will insert their beliefs into the story.
Of course you don't. Like Louis Armstrong said, "There's some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them."
Personally, I don't care what cons think. They are irrelevant.
The journalistic equivalent in print of a commentator are columnists, editorial writers, and opinion writers. Collectively they are called pundits, and they are PAID to give their opinions, as distinguished from the reporters who are paid to report the facts.
Unless they work for FAUX news or any part of the Murdoch empire where report/opinions/reporter/and commentator are so blurred as to be indistinguishable. They feel they can create their own facts, and even their own version of history.
" Unless they work for FAUX news or any part of the Murdoch empire where report/opinions/reporter/and commentator are so blurred as to be indistinguishable. They feel they can create their own facts, and even their own version of history."
That's funny. So, all reporters are fact givers, unless they work for a right wing organization? I think that statement actually proves my point about reporters giving opinion parrallel with their report of 'facts'. I'm sure the facts are cherry picked also, so that their report shows what their opinion is.
By calling the Murdoch empire a right wing organization your prove my point with your admission that they are partisan.
Media outlets are supposed to be non partisan in content.
And besides that Roger Ailes admitted just that about his organizations partisan bent in an interview on 60 Minutes about 10 years ago, that he didn't anything even history as objective, the goal of the true journalist.
Additionally you're limiting the conservative movement to just Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. There's still the Weekly Standard, the National Review, and various conservative think-tanks, as well as social conservatives beholden more to a special intereest than an over-arching movement.
The rest of our media news, particularly television, is not partisan but infotainment.
...that he didn't CONSIDER anything including history as objective, the goal of the true journalist.
Aren't media outlets privately owned companies? Aren't privately owned companies in business to create a profit for the owner? What law says privately owned media is 'supposed' to be non-partison? I don't think Murdocks empire is 'supposed' to be any more non-partison than this site. If they are non-partison it's by choice, not by design. Same with one being paritson---choice.
That's the industry practice.
All businesses have certain standards they hold in common for how to conduct business, even though the abrogation may not be illegal.
So if you want your own newspapers or television news to be more profitable, you get the editorialists and commentators most popular, and the reporters most able to ferret out the news without having to issue retractions later.
Or, you hire those who follow your opinion and don't worry about retractions. If you hire the ones who the masses agree with most the profits will follow. If the owners opinion and the opinion of the masses differ I think the profits would dwindle away.
Or you can find a niche market like Fox News and find the best way to serve your product tailored for that niche market. Fox is news for people who don't like to think and Murdoch has found the best way to exploit that. There's a small amount of people like that out there, but they are big enough to make a cable channel profitable.
"There's a small amount of people like that out there, but they are big enough to make a cable channel profitable."
Which could be a good opportunity to explain why liberal media keeps complaining of needing "fair" exposure. If it only takes a small amount of people who think one way to be profitable.
The Fairness act only affects broadcast and maybe print (although they may include opposing views in the interest of a complete story.)
Since it is gone and they would essentially be rewriting perhaps they can include cable, satellite, even blogs (?)
The problem was for awhile it seemed like the niche market was effecting the mainstream market. Even when the mainstream tried to be fair they were allowing the niche to determine what their stories were.
And it convinces us that the niche market is afraid of having their propaganda exposed by such practices, since in practicality it would end up with maybe some opposing views showing up, but for the most part reading off that certain people or groups were invited to express their side, but were either refused or sent a statement, which they then read, and then do their show as normal.
You don't seem to know even the basics of journalism.
Reporters and commentators don't offer retractions to their bosses, or vice versa. The bosses offer it to their audience when they're caught misleading, lying, carelessness, and in some extreme cases totally falsifying stories.
Like the NYtimes did with the McCain is cheating story that may have cost him an election? They did print a retraction, didn't they? In January ... a year later?
"and in some extreme cases totally falsifying stories."
I meant to include that phrase in my reply.
I don't know about your example since you provided no citations, but that's how it's supposed to be done, unlike FAUX, not because they don't make mistakes, but because they offer no apologies, and according to you in March 3, 2009, 4:16 they shouldn't have to.
That's an excellent point. Can't they just do whatever they think they need to do to get profits? There's no law against that. When we're talking about FOX, then it's just capitalism. When it's the NYT, then Philib suddenly understands the concept of ethics.
"Like the NYtimes did with the McCain is cheating story that may have cost him an election? They did print a retraction, didn't they? In January ... a year later?"
Oh, so you don't think that the possible swinging of an election through deception is an ethical issue? That says an awful lot about you. What did you think you were doing by pointing out consequences of supposed bias, besides showing why it's not acceptable practice?
I'm sure the NYT is a liberal paper, that's why they hired Kristol and Brooks and led the cheerleading for the Iraq war.
They also had Judith Miller cheerleading an unnecessary war.
Media matter have cover just about everything that i was thinking .
Mathew is a doufus ranter
Santinelie , i'm just wondering what this guy smoking .
Just a couple of minutes ago on CNBC Jim Cramer made a strange reference. I think he refered to Barack Obama as Colonel Sanders.
I think Cramer owes our president an apology
An apology? For what?
The liberal media is a myth pretty much created by niche marketers like the conservative FAUX, and limbaugh, because the mainstream media has standards that most of these conservative "personalities" don't qualify for. There was some predecessors in Richard Nixon's Silent Majority
Politicians of all stripes seem to be annoyed that they can't shape the frameworkof the news, and will accuse them of partisanship when they refuse to play along.
In fact, there are only six major owners of the media in all it's outlets: Time/Warner, GE, Disney, Verizon, and News Corp. Time/Warner once was owned by Ted Turner and could've been considered liberal then, but he has since sold it. They've recently split in two making it six total owners. Disney is primarily about entertainment (now infotainment.) GE and Verizon it's primarily a business to sell a comodity, and News Corp is FAUX news and they're about making up the news seemingly from thin air to support their conservative propaganda.
That's why there are studies showing that the average FAUX viewer has little understanding of what's happening in the world.
Additionally it's not the "liberal media" that is trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (I mistakenly called it an act), but certain social interests who are often mischaracterized..
I'm leaving now to watch the final chapter of King of the Rocketmen, and start on Captain Marvel.
Good Journalism is no longer available in main stream media. They don't cover the issues with facts anymore just gossip and opinions.
Santelli a populist? Well now we know, black is white and wet is dry.