MSNBC's Stewart joined ABCNews.com on Drudge bandwagon
On the January 3 edition of MSNBC's The Most, host Alison Stewart, in a discussion with Washington Post staff writer Lois Romano, joined ABCNews.com* in citing the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, which "suggest[ed] there's going to be this New York Times report that Sen. Hillary Clinton's [D-NY] camp thinks her two biggest contenders here are Sen. [Barack] Obama [D-IL] and former Sen. [John] Edwards [D-NC]" in the 2008 Democratic primary for president.
As Media Matters for America noted, Drudge reported on January 2 that The New York Times was set to publish an article by chief political reporter Adam Nagourney on January 3 indicating that Clinton "believes the threat of his [Obama's] candidacy will diminish as voters learn how inexperienced he is in government and foreign affairs!" According to Drudge, "newsroom sources" at the Times told him that "[e]ditors have placed a story filed by reporter Adam Nagourney in Page One lead positions." The January 3 Times, however, did not publish such an article. Drudge has since updated his story, reporting on January 3: "Publication time: Unknown." In noting Drudge's report, as with the ABCNews.com article, Stewart did not mention that Drudge revised his claim about when the Times will publish the story after it became clear that Drudge's original reported publication date of January 3 was wrong.
From the January 3 edition of MSNBC's The Most:
STEWART: That is -- that is an excellent point. We were talking this morning, the Drudge Report is suggesting there's going to be this New York Times report that Sen. Hillary Clinton's camp thinks her two biggest contenders here are Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards. Edwards vetted last time around, and Senator Obama really has a long road ahead of him in terms of digging up his past, doesn't he?
ROMANO: He does, and you know, one good analogy would be to take a look at Howard Dean at this time. I mean, he was getting unsurpassed support from first-time involvers -- I mean, people who hadn't voted. I mean, he was just exciting people. And as the campaign wore on, he didn't wear as well. I mean, he was shown to have a short fuse. He -- and we all remember the scene in Iowa when he started screaming when he lost. And so, that's the kind of things -- you know, voters are not going to be totally focused on whether he has experience or not, although that's going to be somewhat of an issue, but I think they're going to look at how he comports himself over these next two years.
*The link to the online version of the ABCNews.com article appears to no longer work.
UPDATE: The New York Times has posted the article in question here.
of baseless speculation stupidity and hated of women is being spread by Sludge and his new lackey's
If you say what you mean, you don't have to keep saying "I mean". Four "I means" in one thought should really disqualify you from being on television.
it can be a tell that the person on purposely lying or coving up parts he/she does not want mentioned.
It is disturbing that this is getting air and print time without any care for fact checking. I have a bigger problem with the medias protrayal of politicians as one dimensional or 3 words. McCain- maverick ( what a joke that is today). Hillary-power hungry, Machaivellian arch liberal (actually she is moderate as is Bill- the poster boy for Machiavellian tactics is turd blossom). Bush - a regular guy, one of us (In reality had everything handed to him by his elite family). Well you get the point.
I'm just getting to know who some of these reporters are. Romano on Howard Dean: "He -- and we all remember the scene in Iowa when he started screaming when he lost." Romano is showing me this week that she is never to be trusted. She's one of the reporters who is either stupid or so immersed in Republican spin that she doesn't even know she is a shill. A less charitable interpretation would be that she knows exactly what she is doing.
is one of those telling moments of truth about the so-called librul media. it was a fox creation from the beginning. he was trying to yell over a crowd of cheering supporters. but the tape shown had all the crowd noise removed. it was fox and murdoch's n y post that began screaming about a "dean meltdown". and yet the "mainstream media", including the sunday shows, went on for two weeks asking does dean really have a screw loose. the question, then and now, should have been why is everyone accepting what is basically a doctored tape.
of the so-called "scream" makes it clear that it was in no way a meltdown, or loss of temper, as this twit implies in her comments.
I agree that too much was made of the Dean scream in the media. It was meaningless. They should have focused instead on why Dean did so poorly in Iowa when he came in as the supposed frontrunner. The Dems turned their back on their anti-war candidate. That was the news.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the bar set to "perform" as a journalst is so low, MSNBC, CNN and their like seem to pick those who can barely differentiate between editorial, truth and fiction. Stewart and Johnson at MSNBC are amongst a string. Even the so-called MSNBC stalwart, Twety Matthews cannot out together a coherent and honest debate. Sadly, we in this country are being cheated out of have good and honest news reporting!