Matthews continued obsession with NY Times' Clinton marriage article on Sunday show
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews devoted the first 12 minutes of his 30-minute, NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show to asking his panel 17 questions based on The New York Times article that examined the state of the marriage between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton. Matthews asserted that Bill Clinton "doesn't get special press scrutiny." Panelist and Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy also appeared to validate the Times' decision to publish the story, stating: "I think if [the Times] hadn't done the story, someone else would have." And in an appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders falsely claimed that the Times article only discussed the Clintons' "public social lives," adding that "The New York Times would be derelict if it didn't report on this" because "it's something people want to know about."
In his continued obsession with reporter Patrick Healy's May 23 New York Times article examining the state of the marriage between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and former President Bill Clinton, Chris Matthews devoted the first 12 minutes of the May 28 edition of his 30-minute, NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show to asking his panel 17 questions based on the article. Despite the fact that Healy's article alluded to tabloid-style gossip about the Clinton's marriage, cited interviews with "some fifty people," and documented the number of days the Clintons spend together each month, Matthews nonetheless asserted that Bill Clinton "doesn't get special press scrutiny." Panelist and Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy also appeared to validate the Times' decision to publish the story on the newspaper's front page, stating: "I think if [the Times] hadn't done the story, someone else would have." In addition, none of the other panelists on the show -- CBS News contributor Gloria Borger, Newsweek senior editor Jonathan Alter, and Michele Norris, co-host of National Public Radio's All Things Considered -- questioned the Times' determination of the story's political significance.
Healy's story was also the focus of a segment on CNN's Reliable Sources, where panelist Debra Saunders, a San Francisco Chronicle columnist, falsely claimed that Healy "wrote about their [the Clintons'] public social lives" and "didn't hide in the bushes" -- ignoring the fact that, as Media Matters for America noted, the Times article alluded to tabloid gossip, counted the number of days the two spent together, and apparently requested a copy of "the Clintons' private schedule," a request that was denied. Saunders also claimed that "The New York Times would be derelict if it didn't report on this" because "it's something people want to know about," adding that the story "was handled deftly." In contrast, the other two panelists, Sirius Radio talk show host Bill Press and L.A. Times columnist Patt Morrison, questioned the newsworthiness of the story. Press noted the story "belonged on 'Page Six' of the New York Post [where celebrity gossip appears], not page one of The New York Times," while Morrison asked, as Media Matters has also wondered, whether Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) troubled marriage will "be subject to the same scrutiny" and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani "leaving his wife and sleeping on the couch with a couple of gay friends in their apartment in Manhattan" will "be revisited."
From the May 28 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Mike, when I picked up the New York Times Tuesday morning, it was right at the top, right at the banner, huge story, Paul [sic] Healy, all about the question of whether the Democrats are worried sick that Bill Clinton might mess this thing up for Hillary. Is it true, the main part of their story that big-shot Democrats are buzzing about this topic?
DUFFY: No question. I think if they hadn't done the story, someone else would have. It's party elders, it's money people, it's just sort of Democratic worriers, for the past couple of months, have been asking reporters to sort of look into this because, I think, they don't want to get down the road in a year or two with a front-runner who's no longer viable. It comes at a time when Mrs. Clinton is thinking about her campaign, trying to decide whether to run. And, you know, I think the other factor here that makes a difference is this is also part of the past. And so as they try to look forward, they don't want to get burned again.
[...]
MATTHEWS: What I want to ask is this: Does Bill Clinton know that he's not lucky in this regard? It's not a question of morality. He -- there's some people who get caught, and some people don't. This guy -- we can all go through a list of five women's names right now if we shake our heads a little bit. It does come out with regard to him. He doesn't get special press scrutiny. It just -- one woman calls a press conference. The other one brings a legal suit. The other one makes terrific charges against him. Another one brags to her friend, who she knows hates Clinton, all about their relationship. He picks -- whatever he does in life causes him trouble.
From the May 28 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
HOWARD KURTZ (host): Debra Saunders, do you -- do you think the Clintons' marriage should be analyzed and scrutinized and taken apart at great length on the front page of The New York Times?
SAUNDERS: Yes, I do. And I don't think that people go to work to The New York Times so they can hide in bushes and watch what a couple does. But The New York Times would be derelict if it didn't report on this. Newspapers don't exist so that they can not tell people what they're wondering about. And Democratic primary voters want to know if Hillary Clinton runs for president, is the personal life going to be an issue? And by the way, I mean, if there are any Republicans who are triumphant about this, they're crazy, because you don't know how this story's going to play. People will make up their minds whether they care about this or not. But it's something people want to know about. I think it was handled deftly. And Healy wrote about their public social lives. He didn't hide in the bushes. So yeah, it's fair game.
"while Morrison asked, as Media Matters has also wondered, whether Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) troubled marriage will "be subject to the same scrutiny" and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani "leaving his wife and sleeping on the couch with a couple of gay friends in their apartment in Manhattan" will "be revisited."
No they will not put these " GOP mavericks" under scrutiny and if they do mention anything at all it will only be in passing. They will be handled with kid gloves.
Matthews has no credibility at all and being someone who reads the SF Chronicle I can tell you Debra Saunders doesn't have any either.
I wouldn't trust either one of them to be in charge of a lemonade stand.
Is the complaint here that it is sleezy to report on people's private lives like what their marriage is like, or is the complaint that you want the mud to be slung evenly to Republicans. It's no good to take the moral high ground about how something isn't news only to turn around in the next breath and whine that it would be news if it were happening to people we didn't like.
is one of blatent media bias against Democrats. This is not a tough one to figure out.
On the one hand, you have the NYT & a multitude os cable 'news' outlets prying desperately into the Clinton's private lives. It is a loathsome tactic, & one that is unjustified by any ethical journalistic practice. It is a smear tactic clearly designed to damage a potential Democratic presidential candidate & advance the interests of the Republicans.
On the other hand, these same media outlets are thasfar refusing to apply the same standard to potential Republican presidential candidates, instead giving them a free pass on the same issues that they've raised about the Clintons.
Okay. Got it?
...No one should care about this private lives. We should be hearing about the terror, death, destruction, war profiteering, criminal act, and overal poor behaviour of Bush, Inc...
And, it is true... Clinton was liked by the public, did a good job... and all these freaks could do what gossip about his BJ. Lame. Mathews and these guys have wholeheartedly joined in the chorus of propagandists/corporatist/criminals who think it's okay to rip off the public as long as they're sedated. We all need to wake up.
We should focus on their ability/incompetance in office. I guess since so many of them are grossly incompetant, various media outlets choose to focus elsewhere. If we are more interested in who's doing whom, then we won't notice that we are being hosed.
Tweety . . . still obsessed with the Clintons' marital details? That is SOOO 1998 . . .
Tweet, if you want examine the marriage of a political couple, why don't you do a critical analysis of the Globe article on the Bushes?
First, could there be a greater example of the Rightwing tactic of birthing rumors in the blogs, and then a sycophantic member of the major media "picking up" on the "story" and thus making it "LEGITIMATE" to discuss? If the NYTimes hadn't covered the story, Duffy asserts, someone ELSE would have. Safe bet: The Washington Post stands ready to carry the Republican talking point water as well.
Second, the GOP unleashed their "Contract with America" ONLY TWO WEEKS before the election of 1994. This is because they knew that an announcement prior to that time would have been fatally premature. THE PEOPLE wouldn't be paying attention, while the pundits would have more time to discuss and dissect the information. Yet in this instance, the attacks on Hillary are against someone who HASN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED as a candidate for President. That election is TWO YEARS OFF!!!
Rightwing anxiety and fear has caused a premature indoctrination; they will have shot their load long before it matters to anyone.
[One additional point: the rightwing unloaded on Hillary "the carpetbagger" with everything they had, prior to her being elected in a landslide as Senator, destroying all GOP competitors. Why do they think that THIS time, their attack politics will WORK against Hillary? It's the definition of insanity; keep doing the same thing, while every time expecting a different result.]
It should be a for gone conclusion, by now, that Tweety and his fellow gabbers, arnothing more than voyeurs! So, we will not dwell on his sexual considrrations. However, I am troubled by the lack of what it takes when the so-called Dems are confronted with Tweety's obsession! Nothing, nada! Even Gov. Dean was disappointing! Instead of going after the veracity of Healey, he lobbed a very weak pathetic.."I have not heard that". I am curious as to why Tweety does not interview Hillary or the Big Dog, and have the guts to ask them directly. We need leaders in our party, not panty waisters!
I expect the press to be stupid.Lehrer's news hour is above that drivel.
If Chris Matthews really believes that The Clintons do not get special press scrutiny, he needs to find a new profession ( maybe a a speech writer for Mr Bush ) Personally I think it was just another, of an never ending stream of smears on the Clinton's.
AND their adherents think they have any RIGHT to be concerned with other people's SEX lives as long as the sex life is concentual and both parties are of age??????????????? Most of us don't want to be nosey and be in other people's business as long as they aren't pedifiles. What is it about the GOP that they feel they must be in other people's business????????????????????????????? WE leave then alone....except for the perverts in the GOP (and we all know they have PLENTY of those ;) ;)
He started out as a bit player-moderator promoting the Simpson trial along with Fox's Gibson and a myriad of other talentless hacks. then all of a sudden everybody thought he was political genius. You know ... I thought Zel Miller was nuts when he went off on the man ... but my hat is off to Miller.
This latest obsession of Mathews' with Hillary is not new. His eyes harden and his smirk increases with the mere mention of her name. For at least a year, he has been particularly caustic about her speeches or Senate actions.
He is worse now. I wonder if it has anything to do with his brother's run for a GOP seat and he sees the handwriting on the wall for a Dem win countrywide.
I have long felt that the Clinton marriage was no one's business except the Clintons. As a retired clergyman and family counselor, at the most, I would have expected the right wing critics to shut their mouths about sex and the Prexy, if only because the Impeachment committee turned out to have any number of ongoing affairs - Livingston, Gingrich, Barr, Hyde, and on and on,
That the major media sidestepped all that remains a dark stain on whatever is left of their collective souls. There is not anything the right won't say, if only for the hell of it.
Having grown up with Walter Winchell, I see that Rosemary's Baby in turn has spawned any number of demons that the religous right wouldn't recognize on the day of their deaths. Bah, humbug!
Why isn't the major media all over Bush because of his desertion from theair National Guard?
Rev. Frank Halse (ret)