Russert told Harwood, "Speak for yourself," on the media as McCain's "base" -- but Russert's colleague Matthews has said it too
Discussing a potential general election matchup between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood asserted on the May 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press that, though "many Republicans would find [it] ironic," "McCain's people are going to say that the press is pro-Obama." Harwood added, "Now, John McCain's benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he's going to try to argue, which will have a corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, 'The press wants Obama to win. I'm pushing back, too.' " Host Tim Russert responded, "In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base," to which Harwood replied, "They were his base." Russert then said, "Speak for yourself, Harwood."
But while Russert disavowed any association with the media who, in Harwood's words, "were" McCain's "base," Russert's colleague, Chris Matthews, has put himself in that very group. On the September 10, 2006, edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Matthews said, "The press loves McCain. We're his base, I think, sometimes."
The Center for American Progress' blog Think Progress noted Harwood's and Russert's comments in a May 11 blog post.
From the May 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
GERALD SEIB (assistant managing editor and executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal): You know, I spent some time at Obama headquarters on Friday, and that was a lot of the discussion there. You know, people don't realize yet, there's going to be real policy debate in this campaign. This is about to become a real divide between two candidates with different views. Health care, I think, is the best example. And in the Hamas episode, which we were just discussing, there is yet another element that was in there, embedded in there, that you didn't mention. We've seen in our Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling all year, the one area where Republicans can still claim an advantage is national security and military affairs. The McCain people are going to go at that time and time again, and that's why John McCain jumped on the Hamas statement so quickly.
HARWOOD: But I do think it's important to point out, Barack Obama was not talking about age in that comment. This was the McCain campaign trying to work the referees in advance, trying to conflate losing his bearings. Barack Obama's been saying similar things. The Straight Talk Express has popped a couple of wheels lately and gone off. It's about -- he's making an argument about McCain diverting from principle. But this was the McCain campaign trying to frame the parameters of acceptable argument. And one of the interesting things they're going to make, which many Republicans would find ironic, is McCain's people are going to say that the press is pro-Obama. Now, John McCain's benefited from very friendly press coverage for many years, but he's going to try to argue, which will have a corollary benefit of rallying conservatives, if he can pull it off, of saying, "The press wants Obama to win. I'm pushing back, too."
RUSSERT: In 2002, John McCain referred to the press as his base.
HARWOOD: They were his base.
[laughter]
RUSSERT: Speak for yourself, Harwood.
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
The press is McCain's base then and now. Just because Chris- I have no bounderies in my stream of consciousness musings - Matthews let it slip, doesn't mean it's not true.
As jj said, "stream of consciousness" is what Matthews does... Often he just says nonsense and that has included sexist remarks. Saying that McCain's "base" includes the press is the truth, as documented by Media Matters numerous times.
Yeah, I can't wait for Matthews to run for the Senate as a Democrat. MMFA will surely hate him then.
I wonder about the Matthews bashing. He seems rather fair to me although he slants to the left most of the time (which I like better than someone slanting to the right). I really think someone in the heirarchy at MMFA just flat out doesn't like him.
I agree, Matthews is probably no better or worse than any other political junkie/pundit/opinionator/commentator out there.......he shoots from the hip and points his arrows and blows his kisses to nearly all of them, I suppose.
He isn't nearly the villian he is portrayed to be here.
What do you think the Matthews Monitor is for?
To make sure we don't forget his birthday? ;)
Ok DB, not in so many words, MMFA never uses terms like that in their copy, we both know that......but it is the implication, and just look at the comments by many on a Matthews' thread. You got my point, which is MMFA feels he is their political enemy, except when he says something they like, then it's a total 180.
Would you say MMFA thinks he is a fair and balanced commentator, or a partisan "hack"?
There's no implication in their threads...their columns have called him sexist, but to be a partisan hack is to completely advocate for only one side.
And I understand what you were trying to say, but I think you're trying to make 2 and 2 equal 7. Just because they use him as evidence does not mean that they have suddenly found him favorable or honest in his punditry. They use quotes from O'Reilly to refute his own words all the time, but do you think they suddenly find him on the up and up?
They are using the "credibility" of Matthews to shore up Harwood's claim, yet they diss his credibility as sexist, and partisan all the time, not to mention racist on occasion. So do you expect some of us to accept this from Matthews as gospel, when he is shredded here often for speaking anything but?
If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that, we disagree.
Are you saying you think this thread is here just to innocently point out two different opinions? That's not what I am seeing, what I see is that MMFA is making a case, and using Matthews as backup, to say that the press is part of McCain's base....as stated by Harwood. Russert responds and MMFA is essentially saying "Whoa, that's not what your colleague Matthews says".
You don't think MMFA has an opinion on whether or not they think the press is in the tank for McCain? Of course they do.
D,
Of course MMFA & every Liberal poster here thinks most of the media is in the tank for McCain & Republicans/Conservatives in general.
And there should be no doubt they usually include Matthews among those in the media who shill for the Right.
Matthews is a regular target here. Unless of course MMFA feels they can use him somehow.
BTW, I have never bought into the whole Conservative media bias crap. You've got soldiers for both sides pretending to be neutral.
He isn't nearly the villian he is portrayed to be here.
Villian? He's an idiot.
They are not using Matthews as "backup." They're saying that even Matthews, with all his inanity, sees the issue clearly and even works for the same organization.
They're not using anybody as backup because the evidence is already there. They've documented it many times before. That's the backup.
Straw man in excelscis!!!!!!!!
-- Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack -- tommy
That's what happens when you have a bunch of partisan hacks (mmfa) scurrying around the office digging through press articles and videos to find speech that they can wordsmith for political gain.
It's called being unprincipled.
After spilling barrels of ink on this site running down Mathews as a partisan buffoon...then to use him as some sort of credible barometer...you said it...RICH!
LMAO.
-- Don't you think...that Matthews' remarks confirmed that the press was indeed McCain's base? -- irony
I find little that Mathews says is credible...so no...I don't think his comments carry much weight...or confirmed anything.
Do I think that McCain gets better treatment from the press than Clinton or Obama...sure do. I've always been perplexed as to why? Studies have shown that most members of the press are democrats or vote democrat...so giving favorable treatment to McCain has always puzzled me.
Wes,
The favorable treatment given to McCain was when he thumbed his nose at his own party, the press chewed that up like a cheeseburger. When, and if, he cozies back up to them, he won't be so fawned over at that point.
Yeah...that makes sense.
I firmly believe that the real mission of media figures...not necessarily the organizations...is destruction. Most of them lay awake at night with their moist dreams...fantasizing about the story that they can write that destroys some individual or organization...not just giving the public good solid reporting.
The favorable treatment given to McCain was when he thumbed his nose at his own party, the press chewed that up like a cheeseburger. When, and if, he cozies back up to them, he won't be so fawned over at that point.
Bingo Tommy!
And that kind of points to a Liberal bias in the MSM doesn't it?
Sure, because they hated Bush in 2000 and 2004. I mean, they went after him with a malice unseen in our political history.
oh wait, I was thinking of the other guys.
Get real, they'll love McCain no matter what he does because he's a Republican.
I get your drift. I just don't think Mathews, Russert or any of the other blathering heads are very significant.
irony...posted out of order. My above comment was in reply to you.
I get your drift. I just don't think Mathews, Russert or any of the other blathering heads are very significant.
If you are confused by this, simply read What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (Basic Books, February 2003) and you will learn exactly how this works. While the writers and other media conglomerate employees may vote democratic, they do not control the output. That is determined by their superiors/editors. Their work will not see the light of day or they will be fired if they do not produce the work that fits in the owners' ideological point of view. If you do not get this basic premise, then your confusion is completely understandable and explains why this website exists in the first place.
-- Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack -- tommy
When has MMFA ever accused Matthews of being a partisan hack?
They never have.
MMFA normally treats Matthews here like he's the court jester, but I guess he's their boy when it's convenient to try & make a case ;-)
I used to like Matthews but think he's gone around the bend during this primary season.
One of the reasons I liked him was the enthusiasm he has for politics. But he's been too gushy for my likes during this primary season. And some of his remarks have been off the wall.
I will give the guy kudos for being damn knowledgeable about politics. Just wish he'd tone down the theatrics a tad.
Irony, Tommy and his friends just float around trying to find some crack to crawl in with their puny illogical comments. Their is no contradiction or hyprocrisy in using Mush mouth Matthews as a sign of media hyprocrisy and complicity in creating the phony McCain image. They know it, and their just try to obscure the obvious. Nice try guys,but you got you got to come better than your above scribes.
"Irony, Tommy and his friends just float around trying to find some crack to crawl in with their puny illogical comments"
Wow! What omnipotent wisdom. How can anyone ever hope to equal your logical argumentation abilities. You bring so much factual evidence to your arguments (like the one above) it is difficult to get one by you. How's the weather in that wonderful ivory tower you live in? It must be nice to know that anyone who disagrees with your arguments are automatically putting forth an illogical argument. Why are those arguments illogical, well because if they are in disagreement with yours then by definition they are illogical right?
The screech level may be going up.
Bob Barr has enterred the race as a Libertarian. Ron Paul and Hucky fans might like him.
Heard Hannity took the news well.....not.
Heard Hannity took the news well.....not.
Ooooh, gonna have to watch Hannity tonight then...assuming he can fit the Barr story in somewhere in the non-stop Jeremiah Wright coverage. ;>)
This is one of my favorite sub-genres in the WITH arsenal-- the concrete thinking that gets totally stymied by a supporting quote from somebody who has been cited for misinformation in the past.
I think the confusion comes from that same mindset that likes to divide everything into black & white/good &evil. If he's made comments in the past that were misleading or biased, doesn't that mean that everything he ever says is a lie?
Imagine a prosecutor workiing for days to undermine the credibility of a suspect, pointing out inconsistencies in his account of his whereabouts during the crime. During questioning, the defendant lets slip a detail about the crime that hasn't been disclosed yet during the case, something that could only be known by somebody involved in the crime.
Should this remark be ignored by the prosecutor, as it would be giving the suspect credibility? Of course not, but it's entertaining to see that logic applied by the imagined-hypocrisy warriors here. Love your work.