Matthews, responding to assessment that Giuliani is "very strong in South Carolina": "Music to my ears. Because I think that too"
On the February 5 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews responded to syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker's assessment that prospective Republican presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani "has a big following in the South" and is "very strong in South Carolina" by saying, "Music to my ears. Because I think that too." Parker was responding to a question from Matthews, who declared that Parker "judge[s] a person by their genuineness. Are they really what they say?" and asked, "Can Rudy sell in this religious environment in the South?"
From the February 5 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Kathleen, it's incredible. You -- I've said on this show many a time -- that you judge a person by their genuineness. Are they really what they say? Can Rudy sell in this religious environment in the South?
PARKER: I think he can. Rudy has a big following in the South. He's very strong in South Carolina, for instance. And I've got --
MATTHEWS: Music to my ears. Because I think that too.
PARKER: And I've got something to tell you that's news to me too. I just learned this -- that abortion, the pro-life position, is no longer the litmus test, in South Carolina at least --
MATTHEWS: What is?
PARKER: -- it used to get the crowds -- it's national security.
MATTHEWS: And he's got that.
PARKER: Yes, and he's got it in spades.
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
This is Conservative Mis-Information???
So what's big deal HERE??? Matthews likes Rudi and said so.
My post should have read:
This is Conservative Mis-Information???
So what's THE big deal HERE??? Matthews likes Rudy and said so.
At least for me MMFA is not only a vehicle for data on mis information but also a place to expose the big lie about the "liberal" media. Matthews is yet another example of a right wing or at least right wing leaning commentator for the "liberal" media. It's fine for him to be right wing just don't pretend to be unbiased.
bonvechioc, I understand what you're saying--Matthews, who I THOUGHT was a long time Democrat --does seem to be leaning more to the Right these days on CERTAIN issues--HOWEVER I think in THIS instance he's just excited that Giuliani--a Republican Moderate- MIGHT do well in the primaries. I don't think THIS necessarily means he's PERSONALLY going to vote for him--just that he's excited at the prospects of him being in the CONTEST. And it wouldn't surprise me at all IF, say a moderate Democrat like Senator Evan Bayh were to throw his hat into the Presidential primaries that Matthews MIGHT get excited about THAT too.
Matthews just blows with the wind mostly. Plus, he's an excitable guy. Does ANYONE really still consider him a "serious" journalist/commentator?
This story reiterates Chris Matthews' bias. I had been a long time viewer of Hardball and I had thought of CM as an unbiased news commentator. I know now that he's neither. If you watched Hardball regularly you would see that CM consistently ridicules and denigrate Democrats; and he cheerleads Republicans and their policy. He’s particularly supportive of moderate Republicans. I think that’s pretty much where CM’s head is now; hence this unrestrained enthusiasm for his choice for the 2008 presidential election. In my opinion, these MMFA stories about CM highlights the fact that there is now a predominance of a right wing bias permeating cable news. Democrats and true independents have fewer and fewer outlets to obtain news that isn't filtered through a right wing prism; and I find it very frustrating. Biased coverage in these "news analysis shows" is a direct tentacle of the larger conservative media misinformation problem in my opinion. This isn't a coincidence, Brock's Republican Noise Machine timelines the movement conservative’s strategy to control the media, they rightly assumed that if they controlled the media they could use it to discredit their enemies and ultimately ensure that their message is the only message allowed to be aired unchallenged. They’ve been very successful.
Hi Lynn, I haven't watched Hardball recently though I used to tune in regularly years ago when it was on CNBC (back in the mid-90's), my wife is a Democrat and she used to really LIKE him a great deal (like you, she isn't too crazy about him anymore.)
The ONLY thing I know about Matthews these days is what I read here. HOWEVER, I'm aware that MMFA only HIGHLIGHTS Conservative Mis-Information, so IF he ever says anything POSITIVE about Democrats/Liberals, I know we wouldn't read about THAT here. As an example of what I'm getting at : Katie Couric is OFTEN a subject of threads here for remarks that MMFA deems Conservative Mis-Information on her part. HOWEVER, she has ALSO been attacked by the Right for what they consider her Liberal Bias. Of course we do NOT read about those incidents HERE. Could it be that Matthews MIGHT occasionally side with the Left? But we don't read about it here? Since I don't catch his program I'm curious if you or anyone knows the answer to that.
Maybe Matthews is promoting Rudy for President, or maybe he's just hoping he'll be the Republican candidate?? Perhaps he'll get enthused by a Moderate Democrat too??...But since you seem to know MORE about this guy than I do, I'll accept your analysis as you have always been very fair&reasonable, and I respect your opinions :-)
Good points jeter,
Whenever one mentions that there may be more to the entire story than what's reported here, the standard reply is "Go on another website if you want liberal misinformation" - so the information presented, although it may be accurate, is skewed and may not be indicitive of the overall picture - fine.
But it's perfectly reasonable to point that out, to say go check out a liberal misinformation site is well and good, but to act like it doesn't exist or isn't relevant is unfair.
aren't guys like tommy here to keep us in line? if you think there's something we're missing bring it on. stop whining that we're not doing your job for you.
Do you think for one minute if I, or anyone else, brought up liberal misinformation from someone on one of these topics, that it wouldn't be removed immediately for being off topic? Of course it would.
Off topic remarks also means strict control on the moderator's part.
i've had a ton of posts removed. you just don't have anything so you whine how unfair this site is. go ahead and post something on matthews.
Your points are well taken. I use to watch CM nightly faithfully; but his bias became so blatant and obvious that I couldn't take it anymore. I now watch him only intermittently and my decision to discontinue watching Hardball had nothing to do with MMFA. I witnessed CM's transformation first hand , maybe he has had an evolution of political opinion and that's fine. But it seems to me now he's using his show to promote his own personal politcal philosophy. Don't get me wrong while CM blathers on and on I don't find him politically extreme; but I don't care what Chris' political philosphy is. That's not why I tune into the news. I like an interviewer to ask strenous questions but I pretty much want them to be stoned faced and not to interject opinion. As for Couric I think it was Tom Brokow who said if your pissing off both the left and the right then your doing something right.
The reason that this belongs on mmfa is to alert us to the biases of these commentators and so-called reporters. I am old enough to remember the way journalists reported in the past and I'll take my news straight any day. C-Span is the only station that still practices unbiased journalism in my opinion.
Agreed, C-Span is pretty much the only TV news I watch now. Although I do find the Count-Down entertaining, but's not a serious news show in my opinion, but Keith is funny. I also love the Daily show, but again that's not a real news show.
to dismiss The Daily Show. I saw this a while ago, and thought it was fairly interesting: [link to www.cnn.com] This little survey found viewers who watched The Daily Show were better politically informed that those that watched ANY of the regular media outlets. It's a simple 5 question quiz, and Daily Show viewers had the highest average score, higher than even those who watched CNN, and, WAY higher than those that watched Fox (fake)News. Although Stewart refers to his show as "fake" news, I think the moniker is better suited to Fox
I do use Count down, the Daily Show, and Air America as an alert to current political events and then I go and research them with more traditional news sources.
it also showed that Daily Show viewers are three times as likely (74% vs. 24% of viewers) to have a college education that O'Reilly's viewers.
This comment is for those questioning the appropriateness of this item.
Maybe a simple graph will help.
At random, find 20 comments from Chris, 10 about Rudi and 10 about Hillary.
Create a graph, labeling the centerline as "NEUTRAL", the area above it "POSITIVE" and the area below it "NEGATIVE."
Create 10 gradations in each area labeled from "SLIGHTLY" to "EXTREMELY."
Now, plot each of the comments, first using one from Rudi (R1), then one from Hillary (H1), one from Rudi (R2), etc.
The result will resemble a seismograph output from a magnitude 8.0 earthquake.
Guess where all the R plots will be?
i don't know why this site doesn't spend more time on parker. she's in a lot of papers and she rarely fails to impugn the motives of anyone anti-bush. these are from the link provided to her site. feb. 3 on hillary: "it is what she isn't: human, gracious and humorous." jan 20 on hillary, concerning her plantation comments: when hillary said "and you know what i'm talking about", parker insisted that she was thinking "and you know wuddumsayin?" parker then went on to call her remarks "racist". but i doubt parker has had a problem with the "southern strategy" the republicans have persued for the last 30 years. she also bought all the bush predictions on what a cakewalk iraq was going to be, and if you disagreed you were some kind of air-headed leftist. i don't think she's admitted she screwed up on that.
pursued, not persued
MF:
TOTALLY agree with you regarding Parker. She is in the Repub rag The Chicago Tribune here and her comments are always shortsighted partisan BS. She has to be one of the neocon female cheerleaders who are paid off to parrot their white male masters (see Betsy Hart, Coulter, Malkin, et al). It's sickening that she has a national forum plus face time on Tweety's show and I hope MMFA takes heed.
How ridiculous is it that Parker makes the claim that national security trumps abortion as the key issue in South Carolina? No doubt national security is important to red state voters (and many blues state voters), but anyone who spends time in the Deep South knows that Rudy's pro-choice stance is going to be tough for southern conservatives to swallow. Instead of challenging her position, Mathews went directly into awkward cheerleader mode. Not only is he biased, but disturbingly naive.
Despite what many believe or hope for, the world and the media does not revolve around the left wing point of view - Matthews is an analyst/commentator who has every right to express his opinion without being called "right wing bias". Reporters report, but commentators often interject their opinions, so what? Do they deserve to be branded some right wing shill and need to be called on the carpet for their comments?
It's so ironic how the left wing screams tolerance and inclusiveness, but tolerance for an opposing point of view is greeted with slams and ridicule and jumping up and down yelling bias.
Don't be so threatened by different opinions, if your opinion is strong enough it can withstand it.
Despite what many believe or hope for, the world and the media does not revolve around the left wing point of view
Tommy's become famous for his failed attempts at mindreading. Who thinks that the media should revolve around a left wing point of view? Not anyone I've ever read on this board.
Matthews is an analyst/commentator who has every right to express his opinion without being called "right wing bias". Reporters report, but commentators often interject their opinions, so what? Do they deserve to be branded some right wing shill and need to be called on the carpet for their comments?
If they've projected themselves as somehow unbiased, you bet.
It's so ironic how the left wing screams tolerance and inclusiveness, but tolerance for an opposing point of view is greeted with slams and ridicule and jumping up and down yelling bias.
Nonsense. The left wing wants (a) to have its voice heard and not drowned out by the right, and (b) to have accountability by those who are perceived as unbiased. Furthermore, we tend to be calm and rational about it. The screams and slams and jumping up and down are your speciality, not ours.
Don't be so threatened by different opinions, if your opinion is strong enough it can withstand it.
I agree, which is one reason I never flag anyone else's comments. Can you make the same claim?
Tommy makes a mistake that is common among right-wingers, perhaps because of the nuance involved: confusing "tolerance" with "acceptance." Protesting media bias is not being "intolerant" of anyone; it is merely protesting media bias. Demanding that Matthews be silenced would be intolerant; pointing out his bias is not.
Your mistake, or intentional omission, is to scream media bias at all........for it exists from both sides. This website chooses to highlight certain commentator's personal opinions against "your party" as bias, which it is not, it is rather an opinion........and it's not about acceptance at all - call it what you want but the left's intolerance for another point of view is staggeringly accurate........just look at the name calling and insulting that many engage in here simply because an opposing opinion is voiced. Forget acceptance, simple respect would be gratifying.
you gotta be kidding. look at what happens to anyone disagreeing with bush's war.
Tommy, do you mean this kind of "respect":
It's so ironic how the left wing screams tolerance and inclusiveness, but tolerance for an opposing point of view is greeted with slams and ridicule and jumping up and down yelling bias.
This statement is typical of your overall tone as reflected in your many posts, which is smug and patronizing. Now, it's fine with me if you want to be smug and patronizing, but you can't then turn around and play the poor, well-meaning, victimized right-winger who doesn't get any "respect."
I am not talking about respect for me? I don't need, nor expect it here, to validate my point of view, believe me. I am talking about respect in general from opposing points of view........maybe it's just as bad from the right, I have no idea.
The point is the left has always maintained they are the party of choice, and tolerance, and inclusiveness and the right is the party of narrowminded rich bigoted white males........I am just pointing the inherent inaccuracies of those generalized statements and the hypocrisy therein.
that, my man, is your forte.
The point is the left has always maintained they are the party of choice, and tolerance, and inclusiveness and the right is the party of narrowminded rich bigoted white males........I am just pointing the inherent inaccuracies of those generalized statements and the hypocrisy therein.
Well there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But if I may make a suggestion: if you want to correct the inaccuracies and hypocrisies in generalizations, you might want to avoid generalizations yourself, such as "the left always __________."
Also, when you post on liberal websites, characterizing liberals as "screaming" and "jumping up and down" - in other words, calling them babies, which I know is hot stuff on the rightie websites - shows that you aren't interested in debunking generalizations at all; it shows you are being an obnoxious troll. If you aren't a troll, then it's up to you not to act like one. I suggest looking to Jeter2 (most of the time) to see how it's done.
Call me what you want, it only highlights your name calling capabilities and damages your own credibility.......I am not offended or bothered.
But if you don't think there is alot of screaming and jumping up and down (you called them babies, not me) going on around here when a commentator on talk TV or radio makes a comment you deem slanted against the left, then you are living in a land full of trolls.........at least I admitted there is media bias all over, there always will be........you only travel the low road hurling insults while hiding behind the weakness of your arguments. That, I believe, is a defnition of a troll.
what year is that whine?
I wasn't making an argument. If I was, please tell me what it was and I will try to correct its "weaknesses."
You argued that I nuanced tolerance vs. acceptance. You argued I was smug and patronizing and that I was whining about not getting any respect. You argued I had no interest in backing up debunked generalizations concerning media bias from the left and the right. You argued I was a troll.
None of your arguments have any validity, therefore they are weak - at best.
I would call those "reasonable observations based on the available data" rather than "arguments," but maybe that's splitting hairs. We will just have to disagree about their validity.
You've got a point, maybe my problem is I don't like the genre of Hardball and the like. As I said in previous posts I watch the Count Down, the Daily show and I listen to some of the shows at Air America, but that's for entertainment; I don't consider any of those shows serious neutral news sources.
I remember Sam Yorty and John Lindsay running for president and I don't give Giulliani a snowball's chance in Hell to get the Republican nomination. I seriously doubt this information is accurate, about South Carolina.
First, let me say I disagree with a characterization in MMFA's summary above. J.B. writes:
After looking at the tape, I have to disagree: I don't think Matthews was saying that Parker judges a person by their genuineness; I think he's saying Parker says people, in general, judge a person by their genuineness.
The difference here is that Matthews is not claiming that Parker has some special skill at judging whether someone is genuine. He's saying voters judge candidates on their authenticity.
Which brings me to this:
How in the world does Parker, Matthews, or anyone in the media think Americans judge the "genuineness" of ANY political candidate? By what we see of our politicians on the tube? You may as well ask if Simon from "American Idol" is really mean, or if any of the "Desperate Houswives" are really sexpots, or if Superman really likes to save people.
They're CHARACTERS - just like the manufactured images of politicians that are fed to us via the media circus.
Now, you would think the job of Parker, Matthews, and their cohort would be to help us cut through all of this - the problem is, they're characters as well. And their role is to help us believe that what is coming through the idiot box is real life:
Yes, George Bush is authentic - see, he's clearing brush! But he's not that bright - oh well, at least he doesn't flip-flop!
Yes, Rudy is a saint! He looks good on TV when he's being holy!
Yes, Hillary doesn't believe what she says. Anyone can see that!
I remember a column Parker wrote for the Orlando Sentinel back in 2003, I believe. She interviewed Janet Reno, who was running in the Democratic primary for Governor of Florida (Reno lost).
Parker's column went on about how Reno made her sleepy - no, really, it did. Parker claimed she was "bored" by all of Reno's policy talk, and it made her eyelids droop.
Now, I'd think that the job of a columnist in this case would be to distill what Reno had to stay, interpret it, subject it to fact-based scrutiny, and contrast it to the other candidates. That, apparently, would be too hard. It's much more fun to read minds, take pot shots, and reassure the electorate that any first impressions they have about politicians through the tube are "genuine."
Parker and Matthews are typical accomplices in this scam; like most, they lean right. I know there are many posters here who will object: "Well, all politicians are selling images, and all journalists play their game!"
You're wrong: not only is the right better at this game, they have far too much help from the media. Since the media has given up their function as a fact-checking arm of our society, right-wing politicians can say pretty much anything they want and have little fear of reprisal.
We now have accepted such "facts" into our discourse as "Reagan cut taxes and revenues went up," or "Bush's tax plan went mostly to the middle class," or "Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq." There is nothing even remotely equivalent going on in the left today.
Parker and Matthews don't challenge this: instead, they proclaim the "genuineness" of whoever makes these statements, and base the veracity of the "fact" on that basis.
It's scary, it' s disturbing, and it's going to lead to a lot of trouble.
Calling it opinion doesn't justify what he says.
He is presented as a fair commentator, it's fair to criticize him when he's not.
Presenting only Matthews' bias towards the right doesn't necessarily mean it's the whole story.........this website only points out when he says something they deem "conservative misinformation", they do not point out when he says flattering things about the left or when he says "liberal misinformation".
To conclude here that Matthews skews only to the right is naive.........look around elsewhere or watch him and you will know his opinions and commentary vary from many political viewpoints.
What are right wing leaning posters here always seem to forget (and I can't imagine how with Rush, Hannity, O' reilly, Savage,etc telling you this "fact" every day) is how we have a liberal bias in the media. So, now Tommy wants to say "wiat, there is liberal bias too", when the right leaning bias is pointed out. Once you can get the last 15+ years of us hearing about nothing but the liberal bias corrected, then maybe we will discuss how much bias there is for each side.
First off, I have said many times there is media bias from both sides - so what? Both sides scream about it so much it is tiresome, big deal.
And I still maintain that it is not liberal or conservative bias when a commentator from TV or radio offer up their opinion on an issue or a politician. It is merely their opinion - some opinions don't warrant some factual backup like "I like Guiliani"........there are no facts, it is but a like or a dislike. No misinformation.
but what this post shows is that yet again here is matthews saying something good about a republican, while he bashes democrats. we've all seen the posts on here before: "you guys must be kidding. matthews is a big liberal." fact is, it's documented that he's not. and i keep asking you for some liberal misinformation and you won't provide it. you've got your chance. let's hear it.
First off, I have said many times there is media bias from both sides - so what?
There are two major problems with this statement: (1) the assumption that such biases are somehow equal, so that no one need be concerned about it; and (2) that you are above the fray, when everyone who reads your stuff knows that you’re an apologist for the Right. Pretending things are equal when they’re obviously not is a clear sign of bias in itself.
Both sides scream about it so much it is tiresome, big deal.
So tell me: why does the phrase “liberal media” roll off the tongue so easily, and “conservative media” doesn’t? Why is the former accepted as a truism, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Isn’t it fairly obvious that the Right are the ones who do the vast majority of the “screaming”? If the Left is screaming as much, why is it you so rarely hear it outside of boards like this?
Parenthetically, I do wish you’d stop claiming that it’s other people who scream. What’s really tiresome is all your projections. Furthermore, if it’s all so “tiresome, big deal,” why do you keep writing about it?
And I still maintain
Of course you do. You keep repeating the same tired arguments without any effort to deal with information that’s presented to you. We hope for better, but frankly don’t expect it.
that it is not liberal or conservative bias when a commentator from TV or radio offer up their opinion on an issue or a politician. It is merely their opinion
Amazing. You think opinions are not based on biases? Surely you jest! The two go hand-in-hand like “Rove” and “corruption.”
What’s more, the professional journalist—and Matthews still wants people to believe he is one—can speak without his biases showing. Walter Cronkite did it for eons. Can you imagine him talking about somebody’s popularity being “music to my ears”? If he had done any such thing, the populace would have said that TV journalism was dead. I would opine that that’s a good description of TV journalism now.
Rudy strong in south Carolina . . . because Matthews and Parker think so? PLEASE. The NY GOP thought Rudy was strong in the Senate race back in 2000 . . . and he didn't even last the campaign. They really ought to wait until at least the primaries before making any bold predictions on who's "strong" . . .
We should just see this for what it is: another backhanded slap at a possible Hillary Clinton White House run by the right wing - run media whores . . . just like yesterday, when GOP chairman Ken Mehlman told ABC's "This Week:" "I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates. And whether its the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger."
But you've got to love Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson's response: "If the president and the White House spent half as much time worrying about the runaway deficit and the broken Medicare system as they do about Hillary Clinton, the country would be in much better shape."
This site is dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation. That means nobody here gives a flying you know what about what neocons think about the MMFA agenda, what or who it should/should not report on and how "fair" the analyses are from the Republicoid perspective. Here's a helpful hint for right wing control freaks: stop wasting your time - this is a real no-spin zone.