Matthews to CNBC's Burnett: "You're a knockout"; "It's all right getting bad news from you"
On Hardball, Chris Matthews told CNBC anchor Erin Burnett: "[Y]ou're beautiful" and "[y]ou're a knockout," before closing their interview by saying, "It's all right getting bad news from you."
On the August 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion of recent financial news, host Chris Matthews told CNBC's Erin Burnett: "[Y]ou're beautiful" and "[y]ou're a knockout," before closing the interview by saying, "It's all right getting bad news from you."
Matthews began the segment by asking, "So what's going on with the stock market? Yesterday, the stocks on Wall Street suffered their biggest one-day decline since February. Should we be worried?"
But at the conclusion of the interview, Matthews asked Burnett, who anchors CNBC's Squawk on the Street and Street Signs, "Could you get a little closer to the camera?" Burnett replied, "My -- what is it?" Matthews then said, "Come on in closer. No, come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close."
After Burnett began to comply, Matthews stated, "Just kidding! You look great! Anyway, thanks. Erin, it's great to -- look at that look. You're great." He went on: "No, you're beautiful. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. You're a knockout. Anyway, thank you, Erin Burnett."
From the 5 p.m. hour of the August 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. So what's going on with the stock market? Yesterday, the stocks on Wall Street suffered their biggest one-day decline since February. Should we be worried? Erin Burnett anchors CNBC's Squawk on the Street and Street Signs. Welcome.
Erin, you know, I noticed the statistical quirk is the market's actually up for the week, but it doesn't feel that way.
BURNETT: You know, it certainly didn't. And Chris, hey, you've noticed it. I think it's now, well, six out of the past eight days, I believe, after today's close, that we've had the market move either 100 points up or down. I mean, the volatility that we're seeing right now is volatility we haven't seen since 1987. And you may remember what happened in 1987, an unpleasant one-day 23 percent fall for the market.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, but I didn't have any money back then. I didn't care back then. Go ahead.
BURNETT: Yeah, well, you know, I mean, this -- we have a -- it's almost unprecedented, right, except for then. You know, but I was talking about earlier today, Chris, you know, people are afraid and worried about the market, and they should be because it's so unpredictable right now. But if you look back at 1987, there's a lot of things that are similar to what we're seeing now. You know, oil prices were going up then. The cost of loans were going up then. Market hit a record and then started to falter. We're seeing all of those things now.
But it is different this time around. A lot of people, other than you, have a lot of money, so the market's a lot bigger, and that likely means that the cushion is a lot more significant than it was back then. So, as far as, is this just the beginning of a giant crash? Most likely not.
[...]
BURNETT: Well, they were part of the biggest increase in home ownership in this country that we've ever seen. I mean, home ownership's ticked up a few percentage points over the past few years, thanks to low interest rates --
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
BURNETT: -- and all those creative types of mortgages. And you could say that's a good thing, but, you know, Chris, I guess just to throw it out there and, you know, be provocative, but also ask a fair question -- you know, maybe not everybody is able to own a home. We like to think of owning a home as a right in this country.
MATTHEWS: Yeah.
BURNETT: It might not be.
MATTHEWS: Could you get a little closer to the camera?
BURNETT: My -- what is it? Is it zooming in strangely?
MATTHEWS: Come on in closer. No, come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close.
BURNETT: What are you -- what are you doing?
MATTHEWS: Just kidding! You look great! Anyway, thanks. Erin, it's great to -- look at that look. You're great.
BURNETT: I don't even know. I'm going to have to go look at the tape here. I'm in a strange location.
MATTHEWS: No, you're beautiful. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. You're a knockout. Anyway, thank you, Erin Burnett.
BURNETT: All right, Chris. See you later.
MATTHEWS: It's all right getting bad news from you, even, OK? Thanks for coming on Hardball.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Well, this is a bit of puff. But I think it's generally wise to not comment on your fellow female pundits looks on the air. Very sophmoric behavior.
Chrissy was just being jocular
When he said Erin's looks pleased the ocular
He's a bit of a cad
Which isn't so bad
Considering his brain is an elocular*
Elocular - Having but one cell, or cavity; not divided by a septum or partition
Well done and I learned a new word as well.
I'm willing to bet that Chris has broken the hearts of Mitt, Fred, Rudy, John, George and all the other targets of his past man-crushes.
Great limerick Julia - plase keep them cominig. Better luck on the meter next time.
Sorry my limerick wasn't up to standard. I guess it's all in the reading.
Give Chris a break, he doesn't mean anything by it. Just a little flirting for the fans. But really "why is this here?"
Now Sarge, you know better than to start a fight between us MMFA enlisted folk by asking that there question.
Ex-military may be what the WITH Patrol is looking for?
This is here because...
Chris Matthews is a preening, filthy, nitwit.
But he seems to be under the delusion that he's a journalist.
He might be better hosting the Miss America pageant. Or a Ted Haggard fundraiser.
This item is here either because the volume of any media misinformation furthering the conservative agenda is scarce, or this website is sinking from a serious media watchdog organization into a titilating tabloid-y joke, or they just hate Chris Matthews and find anything to gratuituously slap him with - therefore being no better than many of the pundits and media personalities they accuse every day.
"...this website is sinking from a serious media watchdog organization into a titilating tabloid-y joke..."
Once again, you're attempting to pin the faults of the subject onto his accusers. It isn't MMFA that's sinking into a tittilating tabloidy joke; it's Chris Matthews. That's the whole point. It may not be the most damning example of Matthews' sexism and unprofessionalism, but it's another example to add to an every-growing list.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
CC, tell us how Matthews remarks fall under anything covered in the above MMfA mission statement?
MMfA is not an all encompassing media watchdog. They only cherry pick conservative misinformation etc in the media.
Taz,
You are correct. This has absolutely nothing do with anything except MMFA's contempt for Chris Matthews. That's it. There is no legitimate reason for something so totally idiotic to be here, it is an embarassment to this website and their purported mission.
What I find so ironic is how MMFA highlights media villians they don't like whenever they utter something meaningless, yet they put this silliness here - pot meet kettle.
Read the rest of the comments before you again say that there's no good reason for this to be here. Several other posters explained it quite well.
"Could you get a little closer to the camera?" Burnett replied, "My -- what is it?" Matthews then said, "Come on in closer. No, come in -- come in further -- come in closer. Really close."
In what way is this acceptable conduct for a journalist (or any job setting for that matter)? It may not be conservative misinformation. But it is disgusting and I am glad they highlighted his sick voyeuristic behavior.
It's MMFA's stated mission
To ignite Tazzie's mental cognition
What she doesn't grasp
What her mind can not clasp
It's acccording to their volition
Then get rid of the silly mission statement and replace it with "we can do whatever we feel like".
At least they would be honest. Why cloak it in some lofty statement if it's meaningless?
You're the only one saying it's meaningless. Oh, you and Taz. Whatever they post is of their own volition none the less.
Excuse me. Look around the thread Julia, it isn't just Taz and myself wondering why something so ridiculous is here.
Um, sir. I'm speaking in a generaL manner, not just this thread. But I'm very sure this particular thread is here for the express purpose of putting you in a kerfuffle. Just you, nobody else :0)
Julia, If you're OK with the sloppiness regarding a mission statement that's meaningless, then who am I to argue integrity?
"then who am I to argue integrity?" Tommy
Indeed!
Tommy, julia and the rest of the loons here simply refuse to say anything against MMfA. This thread is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with conservative misinformation or forwarding a conservative agenda. MMfA goofed here, or like you said they have it in for Matthews so they'll just throw anything out there knowing the feebleminded left-wing loons here will lap it up.
All feeble minded left loons, raise your hand. Now gently and lovingly give Taz a noogie. There, there. It'll be alright, girl.
Whenever juliajayne isn't able to argue her case she coughs up another one of her poorly composed limericks instead of addressing the topic..
Now how about telling us all how Matthews remarks constitute conservative misinformation or forward a conservative agenda?
No poems please. You really don't have the knack.
P.S. I'm a he not a she
Sorry, Mon ami. You do so wound me. :)
Pearlene and JJamele and others gave great explanations as to why this is here.
I've seen no evidence that JuliaJayne writes limericks because she can't address the topic at hand. That you suggest that is the case is evidence that you like throwing out baseless accusations against formidable opponents though!
Read the rest of the thread before you try to again claim that there's no good reason for this to be here.
Sue, It is not surprising that you are just another in the chorus of rubberstamping every item here, without fail - so this is no surprise coming from you.
Face it, no amount of rationalization can explain why something so inane and harmless is here. But go ahead and defend it until the end. Credibility just isn't a strong suit, is it?
I never said that rationalizations were a good reason.
Pearlene and others didn't make rationalizations, however.
They explained quite well why this is here.
Delusional person that you are, rather than read their lucid and apppropriate explanations and understand why this is here, you continue with your rabid attempts to attack the messenger instead of acknowledging that you were wrong.
They're your delusions. You should own them if you aren't ready to let them go.
OK Sue, I was wrong. This personal vendetta that MMFA has against Chris Matthews is perfectly appropriate, as long as one can prove that this CNBC anchorwoman is a dog, and not "beautiful" and/or a "knockout".
It's not a personal vendetta just because you say it is.
It does fit their mission statement, as several other posters explained to you. The fact that there was initial confusion doesn't mean that there is no good reason for posting this.
It's too bad your delusions have such a firm grasp on you.
Thank you Nomo, I guess you know where Tommy's goat is tied when he begins to call you Sue, eh?
I guess you know where Tommy's goat is tied when he begins to call you Sue, eh?
Yeah julia you're usually too busy accusing SueEld of being JLyon or me.
Pot meet kettle.
As I read your posts, I feel as if you're searching for any and all reasons to justify this being on the web site. I assume you share the same hatred for Mathews as MMFA. It's nothing being made into something.
sue, I read the thread. Again, Matthews remarks have nothing to do with conservative misinformation or forwarding a conservative agenda. Read MMfA mission statement then explain how Matthews remarks fall under any category.
You can't or you would have already.
julia a formidable opponent? On what planet?
Yeah that goes for you too.
Taz, Sue sucks up to this website every chance she can with one glorious compliment after another, read her posts. She obviously thinks that will help her when the powers that be make their decision whether or not to ban her, again.
So she wouldn't criticize anything if her next screenname depended on it. She is in their corner, until.............?
Tommy, I've been around this site on and off almost from it's start. I fought with sue, ellie, notthatgeorge (I'm the one that outed sue playing george) I'll gladly fight with nomobush.
I find it kind of funny that sue remains so loyal to the site that has banned her repeatedly. Kind of creepy. But so is sue.
I read it, and I knew immediately why this was here.
Strange as it might sound, I actually read all the comments before I posted, and found that others had already explained why this was here. Rather than explain it again, I just pointed people to those other posts.
I don't know if Sue is loyal to this site or not, since I am not Sue. I don't know if she should be loyal to this site, because I don't know what went on. I don't care how long you've been here, because longevity hasn't stopped people in general from being illogical or from being partisan.
So what does "it's all right getting bad news from you" mean? Bad as in incorrect, misinformation, poorly researched? Is that the meaning here?
Well, I just answered my own question. Apparently she was saying we need China's tainted products because if they remove the taint the prices at Walmart will rise. Lookin' out for the little guy...
I don't ask this often, but really...
What is this doing here??
Reflexive PC.
Isn't using the term "PC" pretty reflexive?
I saw this when I tuned in a bit early to Keith Olbermann . It was shockingly disrespectful to this young reporter who happened to be a woman. She was put off balance and it showed.
Matthews reminded me of the creepy drunk uncle at a wedding. What is wrong with this man?
What is wrong with this man?
Perdidodog
He's a sophmoric boor. As a woman, I can assure you this type of stuff is a regular occurance especially if you are attractive. Very, very unprofessional of a TeeVee person though.
She loved it, drunk uncle or not.
She loved it? Uh, no. Watch the video. Like Mefirst wrote below, Matthews is so embarrassingly clumsy that she clearly didn't even realize that she was being hit on.
Yes, Lemoc, I'm sure you think she loved it. And I'm sure you think that all women secretly long to have their butts pinched by their bosses and to be leered at while walking down the streets, and to have suggestive things shouted to them by strangers driving by in cars, because it makes them feel sexy and desired. Only the PC police are ruining the fun by calling out such demeaning behavior. Why don't you just crawl back under your rock, or back to the 1950s, or wherever you came from? In this day and age- and I know, you hate every moment of your life in this scary, Brave New World- women actually expect to be treated with respect. I know, it sucks, doesn't it? But that's the way it is.
Still, our friends above ask, "What is this doing here."
You make an excellent point, so, now we have to ask: "What are they doing here?"
technically not misinformation, but it's very strange. you can clearly read from her comments that she's confused as to what is going on. as flirting, this would rate a d minus.
It's a new thing called "unwelcome sexual attention", also called "sexual harassment", a form of gender discrimination that is against the law and prohibited in most workplaces. Maybe you've heard of it?
There have been numerous posters here at MMFA who have addressed the issue of why MMFA's pointing out racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., comments by "main stream media" is well within its mission. Please refer back to those.
Most of the time I gladly defend MMFA against the WITH Patrol anytime an item has at least something, anything to do with someone's political agenda.
If Matthews was an obvious right-wing, bible-thumping, hardline defender of "traditional" America or the like, MMFA would have something little more substantial, but I just don't see that.
But, you know that if MMFA gave Matthews a pass on this, the WITH peanut gallery would pound them for their "hypocrisy".
spooky, maybe you've heard of this: lighten up. i wasn't making any criticism of mmfa.
Me, I'm not criticizing you; I am pointing out that it is not "flirting", and the distinction between flirting and sexual harassment is important, and that is why MMFA pointed it out.
If there's a coupla hundred thousand to be made by suing over such a traumatic event, then it's never flirting--it's always sexual harassment. Ask any ambulance chaser worth his salt.
This Matthews moment has an unsettlingly wet-dreamish air to it, but I'm afraid I'm in the WITH Patrol boat on this. What does Matthews' creepy fixation with a young woman's looks have to do with his or anyone else's political agenda?
Please see my post above.
Yes, you've shown it to be a legal issue regarding workplace atmosphere, not a political issue that pertains to an agenda.
Does Matthews' behavior violate some badge of moral commitment that he wears on his lapel or preaches about on a frequent basis? I'm willing to be convinced.
Are you really saying that sexism isn't political?
To include this silly thread as a Sunday extra shows a lack of supervision and/or a lack of adult judgement from Ryan Chiachiere.
Pick on Mathews all you want...but don't even try to make this out as conservative misinformation...puny effort.
I really do not understand why this is here either. My only guess would be to embarrass Matthews? Nothing really embarrasses the guy, this was a man who used the F bomb on the Imus program.
Well, whatever it is, I did write to CM to call him on his unprofessional and boorish behavior. Maybe a few letters would get through his tiny brain....doubt it, but maybe at least he will refrain from doing it again within the month.
It has to do with Tweety's on-camera reliance upon traditional gender stereotypes, Doris. It has to do with Tweety abusing his position of power at the expense of a younger female worker's dignity. It has to do with Tweety's embrace of conservative political values that allow powerful males to treat females as delightful objects that they may comfortably exploit & embarrass, ignoring completely the feelings & budding professional reputation of a lower ranking employee. It has to do with arrogance of power, & the place that many traditional/conservative-minded males wish to continue assigning to those that they see as their natural inferiors.
It has to do with Tweety advancing one of the oldest, most conservative, most reactionary, knuckle-dragging philosophies yet clinging to its assumptions of high privlige, & doing so through a smug, sub-intellectual, & visceral demonstration of power.
That's what this is doing here.
Yeah, it seemed pretty obvious to me, too- but it seems we are getting an especially ignorant group of posters on this issue- even more "ighten ups" and "what's the the big deals?" than usual. I half expected Matthews to ask his guest "come on now, baby, you aren't REALLY a reporter, after all- you're just a hot chick with a microphone, right?" I'm sure the response from some of our posters would have been the same- "aww, its just a joke, back off, PC police", etc. They just don't get it. This is demeaning behavior by a rather significant figure in the MSM. It's the type of sexism that has vanished from most of the MSM, and when Matthews demonstrates a level of unprofessionalism and brutishness like this, it needs to be pointed out. I'm amazed that this isn't obvious to so many posters.
I, for one, am not denying his lack of professionalism and his brutishness. Erin Burnett is more than justified if she feels creeped out or offended by this behavior, but what does this have to do with political agendas?
I'm all for seeing staunch defenders of "traditional values" being exposed for the perverts they often tend to be, but is that what's happening here?
I'm really trying to keep an open mind, but I continually fail to see any significance to the conservative agenda.
This story is just silly. It has nothing to do with the MMFA mission statement. Matthews is a fool, we know it, but this is just some sidebar fun that these talking types tend to do.
Right on Mescal and JJamele. This is most definitely an equality issue and that is a political issue. We all know the traditional conservative stance on gender equality. Really, there should be no question as a to why MMFA included this segment.
Matthews simply was not treating her as an equal.
As a side note, it's refreshing that MMFA staff doesn't feel the need spell out for us the issue at hand. They rely on our knowledge and sensitivity.
MESCAL said:
It has to do with Tweety's embrace of conservative political values that allow powerful males to treat females as delightful objects that they may comfortably exploit & embarrass, ignoring completely the feelings & budding professional reputation of a lower ranking employee.
-----------------------------
How can you say that being a sexist is part a conservative set of values? I do believe sexism is pretty bipartisan.
I'm pretty much with the WITH crowd on this one, but still alittle on the fence.
Sexism is not bipartisan.
Conservatives embrace traditional gender roles in which the man of the house is THE authority, just a notch below the Almighty. Conservatives cherish traditional Western hierarchies with men at the top and women at the bottom.
Liberals interact with each other as equals, each with valid contributions to make on any subject.
Wesly, how bout promotion of a conservative sexist mind set. This is within the bounds of the mission statement.
Who cares?
What exactly is this issue - that Mathews is a male with a normal response albeit tacky?
Is this "News"?
Matthews' response was not a 'normal male response'. There are standards that define socially appropriate behavior, and flirting (or whatever you want to call it) is not normal in all social contexts. In this context (on the air, in the middle of a broadcast, interrupting a reporter in the middle of a serious analysis of developments in the financial markets), it was utterly inappropriate, out of place, and frankly bizarre behavior. That makes it a pretty abnormal response in my book, and it makes Matthews seem at best a little senile and at worst pretty creepy. I was mortified just watching it.
I honestly think this guy is losing his mind.
Bob Somberly of the dailyhowler.com often calls Mathews unstable. I often thought Somberly engaged in hyperbole. Not anymore. What the heck is Christ doing on the air? The man really is unstable.
Please- somebody contact the Democratic party and rustle up an every- which -way- beefy= manly man for Matthews.He's starting to look at girls.
Here ya go Chris, have you checked out Dennis Kucinich lately?
Now, that was just plain wrong, HBL.
It might, however, get Tweety to start touting Kucinich as the sort of manly, musky man that he could get behind... if you know what I mean
I wasn't able to see it at work. I see why. My aesthetic's feel horribly abused.
LMAO!!!
Always refreshing to see right wing hacks supporting their brethren. I guess all the knuckle draggers who don't find sexual harassment (a crime in 50 states) a problem wouldn't mind Chris doing this to their wives or daughters on national TV. This is the kind of behavior I would expect on Fox from the falafel king.
You are joking, right? It's obvious they are friends, and she has been on the program a number of times. I would have assumed people can determine the difference between joking and harassment. I was was wrong apparently. If you get this wound up about a comment like this, I wonder what you are like when someone is actually sexually abused..... heads would be rolling.
Watch the slobber today 8-13-07when he starts talking about roves reported departure
She IS gorgeous. Matthews is creepy. The point that's missed thought is that Bush is touting how home ownership is up but the reason it's up is because of these BS loans whose payments go up so fast it'll make you go broke. Now those loans are coming due and not only will home ownership go down, banks will loose and the stock market will loose. But it's the stupid people who didn't know what they were getting into whose fault it is, not the lenders who put the whole economy at risk by hawking BS loans.
But it's the stupid people who didn't know what they were getting into whose fault it is, not the lenders who put the whole economy at risk by hawking BS loans. Nixau
It's called preadatory lending. They target these "stupid" people because they are vulnerable.
It's not the bank's fault there are "stupid" people in this world. It's the borrower's responsiblity to know what they are getting into by signing an contract. Stupid people pay too much for clothes anymore, but we don't go around blaming GAP, and Banana Republic? People have options, and if they don't have a good loan, they can shop at other banks.
There is a reason that predatory lending practices are frowned upon. Blame it on so called stupid people. It is bad for everybody. It should not be tolerated.
Do't waste your time, JuliaJayne. In Republcan-world Goliath wins.
Just forget the unethical practices of these lenders, it's all fair. It's for profit.
Perlstein nails it: "The broker's name is Fred. The customer leave Fred's office at 10:30. Fred charges into the conference room, shaking his head, relating his latest triumph to high-fives all around. He's just unloaded a NINJA--a "No Income, No Job, No Assets" loan. "I give this kid three years before he forecloses." The other brokers make their own predictions, adding you to the office pool. Fred returns to his cubicle. Then, with a few keystrokes on his computer, he does what it is mortgage brokers do in order to make money: he dumps the new mortgage onto the "secondary market" - another strand in a complex bundle that will sold to investors as a security in the "booming" housing market. People are still buying these things like hot cakes. The prices of the homes are appreciating so steadily and so fast that these real estate securities feel like licenses to print money. Over in Fred's shop, the brokers aren't sure the prices will hold. Some of the brokers are betting the housing bubble will burst, and have hedging their bets by dumped their own positions in the housing-securities market.
They have not, however, hedged their bets by stopping the pushing of NINJA loans on penniless professional coupes just starting out. For that, indeed, is a sure bet. They've already earned their money--from customer fees, and from selling the loans to Wall Street. They don't care if you can keep up with your payments, or even if you foreclose. They've earned their money either way. They have no incentive to be responsible. In fact, their incentive is just the opposite. Their incentive is to do what has just been done unto you - a wildly irresponsible loan combining all of the most colorful innovations in their bottom-feeding field: a "ballooning," or interest-only, payments until the lump sum comes due in a decade; a "liar loan" in which the borrower need produce no documents of his income; an "option ARM" with a "teaser" rate; a "stretch loan" that even with all these blandishments still eats up 50 percent of the borrower's (notional) income; a "piggyback" feature in which a first mortgage is structured to build in a second mortgage that requires no down payment.
No used car salesman could get away with this stuff, and Fred knows it. He takes his pals out for a leisurely lunch. He orders the most expensive wine on the menu. They toast to their firm's lobbyists in Washington and the state capital - the boys who've made it all possible..."
[link to commonsense.ourfuture.org]
Bailing someone out from their stupidity by blaming lenders should not be tolerated. It's very simply, read what you are getting. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. You can't keep blaming people for agreeing to things they "didn't know about". This is as ridiulous as that woman sueing for burning her mouth with McDonald's coffee because "she didn't know" it was going to be hot. Sure, why not, let's continue to bail stupid people out of their bad choices. Where is the personal responsibility.
We can assume that you believe the hedge fund crew who enabled these predatory lending practices should be hung out to dry too?
But honestly, do you really think our fellow citizens should be put out on the streets because they were enticed by snake oil salesmen to make poor purchases? Are the children of these families to blame because their parents were cheated by quick talking, short change artists?
Seriously, these lenders were not above board in any way, shape or form. They're common swindlers and cheats. But without the lax rules and deregulation so cherished by the corporatists in Washington none of this crap would have hit the fan. So don't blame hard working people desperate to live the American dream, get pissed at the beguiling Wall St. thugs who forsake ethics in pursuit of easy money.
I'm not the one getting mad here. I made smart choices, and I know that I am not ready to buy a house, but I will be in a few months. I know not to be encouraged to do anything I don't want to do. If I cannot afford something, I do not agree to buy it. People make mistakes in this life. I'm sorry if you didn't know that. And these people who agreed to loans they couldn't repay have no one to blame but themselves. I didn't say I was blaming the children. Where did you get that? I feel really bad that these children have parents who agree to things they can't pay up on, but that is no one's fault but their own. There are nasty people in this world, some will try to steal from you.....some will try to con you.....some will try to make you believe you're getting something really good, when in fact you're getting scammed. The gov't can't protect you from every evil in this world. You have to take some responsibility on your own shoulders. You think I had a lot of money when I was growing up? You think I had all my college paid for? Wrong? I'm still paying back school loans, and I'm being faithful to those loans because I agreed to them. I'm certainly not getting into a mortgatge yet because I know I'm not ready. People are held accountable for their actions, good or bad. I'm sorry for these families that are without a house now, but they are going to have to reorganize and reprioritize their lives and make better choices.
Whatever, Smitty. Take up the defense of these conmen gone wild all you want. The truth is people should be protected, by enforced laws, from slicksters who cheat. Honest people have been cheated and no amount of personal responsibility will curtail liars who stop at nothing to steal your money.
I take from your silence that those jerk-off lenders and hedge fund punks are pure as the driven snow in this massive failure of an unregulated market. I guess they deserve a cash infusion of billions from the world bank and U.S. government because they got their booty the old fashioned way: they stole it.
News flash Roundhouse, you're an adult now, and we're all big boys and girls who need to be smart. It is very simple. Do not agree to a loan without a fixed rate. There isn't anyone in this country, who is in a position to buy a house, that needs to agree to an adjustable rate mortgage. If you can't find a lender to give you a fixed rate mortgage, then you need to rethink buying a house. Stay in an apartment for a few more months, or another year or so, until you're financially able (and stable) to get a fixed rate. Why are you wanting the government to bail people out from how dumb they are? That IS NOT the responsibility of our gov't. You are talking about stealing. Stealing is when someone walks into your house, takes your belongings forcibly, and bolts. No one forced John and Jane Doe to come into their bank, forced them to sign a contract, and forced them to pay them money.
When did I defend swindlers and conmen? I think what they do is ridiculous, but it will contintue as long as there are dumb people in this world (and that doesn't look like it will change anytime soon). What I will defend is there right to sell a product, no matter how ridiculous or over-priced it is if people are willing to buy it. Now, if this was a monopoly, then gov't should step in, but buyers are too willing to sign a contract quickly because they want a house without first evaluating whether they can afford it or not.
IT IS the responsibility of our government to protect and empower her citizens. We form governments to protect us against entities that are too big for us to battle alone.
That you would preserve the right of conmen and liars to ply their wares on the public indeed says all that needs to be said on the subject.
You dislike the idea of a regulated market, you dislike protections for consumers. I get it. You're aligned with Libertarians on that.
You are in the minority.
You rely on government to bail you out of everything, and that aligns you with the far left. And that tells me all I need to know about your stance on this subject, and I'm sure many others. This country is about the free, not about Big Brother telling us what we can and cannot do. You have to be smarter than the crooks out there. Free markets are always better, and free markets regulate themselves. Is it perfect, no, and you're kidding yourself if you think it ever will be, and you are really kidding yourself if you think this country is better off with more government involvement. This country is free dang it. Free to do what you want without infringing on anyone's right. Last time I checked, it wasn't a right to own a home, and to have a mortgage with a good rate so that Roundhouse doesn't have to pay more than he wants to.
Markets are not free. They are fully subsidized by the government of the people.
Market fundamentalists absoulutely love the idea of nonintervention...but it's a myth, just like Republican family values.
Markets are sustained by the public through tax breaks, public education, transit infrastructure, zoning laws (which drive down property value), banking system and more. It's about goddamn time somebody made the market fundies give back an equal portion of what they have been generously given. It's time for a living wage, it's time for healthcare and ethical business practices. And yes, it's time to put the laissez-faire predators out of business, they have no damn right to lie, cheat and steal from honest people.
Yes, I do rely on government for big solutions to big problems. That's why we pay the bastards.
Smarter than the crooks out here? Screw that heartless crap, screw that social Darwin crap. we have laws in place to protect the innocent from the crooks.
Why on earth would you argue to enable the rights of criminals to fleece the meek al a an unregulated market? What's your malfunction Pyle?
Maybe Tweetie's caught wind of how entertaining his man-crushes have become on the Internet.
Come a little closer ... into loofa range??
In Chris' defense, he didn't have any "big, beefy men" distracting his vision at that moment.
I thought the misinformation would be obvious - she's just pretty, not a knockout! [/humor]
In all seriousness, is anyone really surprised at the sophomoric behavior of many T.V. bobbleheads? The major news outlets long ago shifted from substance to silliness. It's info-tainment, pure and simple. No wonder even the bobbleheads don't take it seriously.
Here's what I don't get:
If I'm Jeff Zucker, prez of NBC, I want to build the brand of NBC News. I want it to be credible, especially in business reporting, where viewers rely on quality information for their businesses.
So, yes, I cultivate attractive people as reporters, because TV is a visual medium. But I don't want my people to be seen as vacuous twits, because it destroys the brand.
So why is this allowed to happen on NBC? Why is Matthews allowed to paint Burnett as some sort of girlish sex object, rather than an attractive and bright reporter? If I'm Zucker, I'm FURIOUS at this point - I've got one of my stars ruining the credibility of my brand, AND making himself looking like a pig in the process.
Why is this allowed? Unless...
There is a culture at NBC that says this sort of behavior is OK. Or, Matthews is finally losing it.
Maybe it's some of both.
very good points
I've always thought that Chris is just a little too into himself, to put mildly. He has a tendency to blurt out whatever thought comes to his mind. Often this results in his spouting nonsense or things that are contradictory to other things he has said. I guess his ego takes him to where he thinks that even things he says without any thought must be good. This exchange with Erin struck me as just another example of his ego at work. It needs to be made an issue. He will get further out of hand.
Here's how I would have loved to see it go: After asking him "why move forward" and he evaded, spouting more nonsense and without any thought of her discomfort, Erin should have said: Chris you are being silly. Please tell me why to move forward or I won't do it." Then when he said "because you're beautiful and I want to see a close up", she should have said "Chris, I'm a professional business reporter and your behavior is embarrassing me and is inappropriate."
Chris really does need to get slapped around a bit (symbolically speaking) to get his enormous (unjustified) ego in check.
O'Reilly got put in check like that by one of his guests a while back. Of course it didn't phase him a bit. He was doing a regular "Women of Fox" interview during his "Back of the Book" segment, which was of course a cringe-inducing few minutes of O'Reilly attempting to flirt with and/or demean a variety of attractive co-workers. For instance, O'Reilly spent his whole interview with Juliet Huddy repeatedly pointing out that she got her start in the business working at her father's television station. This was billed by O'Reilly as the "secret to her success." In another "Women of Fox" interview (can't remember who the target was this time), he attempted to brow beat another on-air personality into admitting that she was hired for her looks. Unlike the giggly Huddy, this woman wasn't having any of it, and repeatedly tried to point out her professional qualifications. O'Reilly of course simply ignored all that and kept commenting on her looks.
Agreed, but part of the reason why this is a political issue is that she does not have the power he has. If she had said that on the air (or off) she risked even worse treatment later by him and his enablers, sympathizers, and other sexists etc., who see nothing wrong with this behavior. This is not the same as an unwelcome comment at a wedding from a creepy uncle; it's a workplace problem involving right wing, backwards attitudes and behavior toward women, and an abuse of power on the job, where people aren't free to stand up for themselves without paying a big and unjust price. Remember, this is the same network that, according to Olbermann, tolerated years of bad behavior by Imus and his sycophants, and one wonders whether anything would have ever happened, if his "last straw" comments had been only sexist rather than both racist and sexist.
I think found this post to be entirely appropriate for MMFA, as it is a fine example of how Matthews trivializes and obscures the news. Ms. Burnett had, in my view, made a worthy effort to report on a a complex issue that does not lend itself to the visual nature of television reporting. What Matthews did was to ignore and indeed diminish her work. My hunch is that he resorted to that because the substance of Burnett's report was over his head, and the easy way to hide his ignorance was to shift the focus to the messenger's appearance, even though this was inappropriate on so many levels to do so. So while Matthews' creepy slobbering over a professional woman young enough to be his daughter might be dismissed as a "pc or not pc" issue in some other context, happening as it did in a news broadcast it can legitimately deemed an example of media malfeasance.
WITH?
It's here because the "story" is one of the biggest stories to effect the Juniors economy. We have continually heard how great the “economy” is, you know low unemployment while supporting “lower taxes” for all. We all know what is happening in the housing market and how it effects everything related to it. Here Erin is reporting that Wall Street suffered their “biggest” one-day decline since February. We all know that most of America’s retirement is 401k based and directly involved in market results. Erin then goes on to state that the trend of the market lately is similar to 1987 when the market suffered an “unpleasant one-day 23% fall”. Instead of treating the story with the importance that it deserves, Chris is a creepy, leering old man trying to hit on a reporter doing a professional job. If he gave the story the respect that it deserves it might show that this “great economy” that we have under Junior is not so great and is more like a house of domino's. One push of the domino and the rest will collapse. If he treated the story with respect some might find out a lot more information about our “great economy” than some would like us to know. IMO that’s WTIH.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The bad news in the report made Matthews uncomfortable, because it didn't support the Bush administration's economic agenda. His behavior was a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from the substance of the story onto the appearance of the reporter, and at the same time subtly undermine her credibility. In so doing, he defuses the story's impact.
THAT'S why the story is MMFA-worthy.
UNCLE, UNCLE, I give up. Now I know "WHY" this is here. LOL. Mission accomplished.
Terrific BillO impersonation!!
So what! Chris Matthews was making a compliment. Media Matters should be paying attention to Media that Matters.
It is here because Chris Matthews is a prominent POLITICAL voice in the national discussion. It is here because he could quote you chapter and verse on why he thought the Iraq war was a bad idea at the time, but you heard almost nothing about it when it might have made the difference. It is here because this was the equivalent of his mancrushes on Bush, McCain, Thompson and Romney. It is here because Matthews squelched a woman who was making a serious political point by saying, in effect, "You're so beautiful when you talk about securitization of mortages." I think it's a serious thing when a figure such as Matthews is such a fool. His obvious and painfully juvenile sexism is only the tip of the iceberg.
It's a serious thing when you can't pick out the good news, and look past what Matthews was saying and worry only about what was considered newsworthy in that segment. If you're going to get hung up on what Matthews said, you've some issues. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch him, and you certainly don't have to mimic his behavior. Move on already.
It is a silly thread. So what else is new?
OMG it's not PRECISELY conservative misinformation! MMFA can only post conservative misinformation, even if a media personality says something strange or outrageous that doesn't precisely fall under the header of "conservative misinformation;" even when the statements exemplify a media figure's sexism or racism.
I'm calling this "Tommy's Law."
I think people are missing the point of this article...
Is it trivial? Of course. It was an off-hand comment.
Is it important? Very.
Although not a blatant falsehood, this little exchange illustrates how the "news" is being shaped and why such shaping is dangerous. The obvious goal is to have Chris "perform" as a personality rather than just give out information and present informed analysis. How News is presented is now more important that What is presented.
The cult of personality has been extended to the News and is being used to shape ideas. Both Conservatives and Liberals should be deeply concerned by this turn of events.
I thought it was fairly obvious that the conservative agenda includes "putting women in their place." And this is just one minor, but highly illustrative, example of that.
Matthews and Burnett are both pigs. The following quote from Burnett is what this post should have been about:
I noticed that too. I think maybe no one commented on it because a pro-corporate slant has become so entrenched in the "mainstream" media that people don't even stop to think about it when they see it. Both this and Matthews' sexual harassment should be highlighted. Maybe MMFA should've had two separate items.
agree but also, re: Plantsman's post:
1) the quote Plantsman mentioned above must be in the video only, because it is not in the quoted passages in the MMFA story text. The main reason why there aren't more comments about the quote that concerns him is that many if not most of us rely on the MMFA text only, and don't or can't view the videos.
2) it's wrong to say or imply that the quote is the story and not the angle on which MMFA focused. That implies either that sexual harassment isn't an issue, or that because the target is a jerk/conservative/poor journalist, it isn't. Definitely both are legitimate issues on which MMFA could base stories. That's why I agree with you that both stories, separately, should be highlighted.
Maybe my connection (or hearing) is bad, but I just listened to the video, and I did not hear this quote at all. Maybe MMFA edited the video.
Please add a link to your source. Thanks.
I found the quote is in the transcript at the Hardball site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249441/
So yeah...Matthews is a sexist boor. Isn't the fact that Burnett is a corporatist sociopath at least as noteworthy?
OH NO! A man told an attractive woman she was attractive! Let's get him off the air IMMEDIATELY! I fail to see how this is "conservative missinformation". Lighten up mmfa.
Matthews fawns and drools regularly. He has a fixation with body image. It's disturbing especially when he discounts a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, like he's done with Edwards because, "He's short." Unfortunately, he rules the roost on MSNBC unless someone (Keith Olbermann) knocks him down a peg.
The way it fits into the mission statement of this site:
Sexism in the workplace damages women. As feminism could be considered a part of the progressive agenda, this video is acceptable. Matthews is belittling her credibility by merely focusing on her appearance and not taking her seriously as a commentator.
This Chris Matthews really has no business as anything close to a serious journalist. Time after time he is so concerned with personal appearence, no matter who or what the subject. From his Obama's skinny with big ears, Romney has "got a great chin!" to "Gulianni looks like a President" & now this. I think it's time that Matthews was removed from "Hardball" & looked for something better suited to his interests. Maybe Entertainment Tonight or the Insider. Get this softball tosser off of Hardball.
Just when I thought that I couldn't dislike this creep any more he gets even creepier! Thanks very much for pointing out how inappropriate his comments were. Maybe it'll help him, or some other sexually repressed dolt by causing them to consider their words and actions more carefully in professional settings.
S. Anderson
This is not ridiculous at all! It is unacceptable for men on TV to leer and say inappropriate things to women. How would it make you feel to be doing your job and be interrupted by this creep asking you to "get closer" and calling you a "knock out"! He should be forced to apologize on air.
I watched this live. The impression I got was that Matthews was joking that She was already really close to the camera.
I watched that show and took offense at his remarks to a serious financial reporter. It was out of line, icky! Sexual harrassment in the work place. I felt embarrassed for her. If you watch him , you'll hear him make these sort of remarks about women - "good looking gal....." etc. He appears immature when he does it. Maybe it's a sign of his aging....