NBC's Shuster mocked The View co-host Joy Behar for her criticism of Matthews' Clinton comments
SUMMARY: During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe, NBC News' David Shuster mocked co-host Joy Behar of ABC's The View for her criticism of MSNBC host Chris Matthews' recent comments about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which Matthews attributed Clinton's political success to her husband's "mess[ing] around." Shuster stated, "Yeah, you know, Joy Behar is well known for her political analysis" and then rolled his eyes, before purporting to "impersonat[e]" Behar.
On the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, contributor Willie Geist asserted: "The ladies at [ABC's] The View yesterday ... didn't appreciate his [MSNBC host Chris Matthews'] characterization of [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's [D-NY] rise to success" and proceeded to air a video clip featuring portions of the January 10 edition of The View, during which co-host Joy Behar read Matthews' recent statement about Clinton that "the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." After a brief discussion of the clip, co-host Joe Scarborough said, "Now, let's go right now to our Washington bureau, NBC News' Washington bureau. David Shuster is there with an update and his latest Joy Behar imitation." Shuster asserted, "Yeah, you know, Joy Behar is well known for her political analysis," and rolled his eyes. After saying, "[H]ere's my Joy Behar impersonation -- actually this could apply for everybody on The View," Shuster said, " 'Oh, Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews gave his opinion. Ohhhhh.' I mean, come on. Give us a break." Geist then stated that Shuster's impersonation of Behar was "well done," adding: "That's good stuff."
From the January 11 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: And Willie Geist, speaking of attacks, the guy that David Shuster works with, Chris Matthews, came under attack --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Oh, yes he did.
SCARBOROUGH: -- from an unlikely source.
GEIST: We're gonna have Chris Matthews on this very show very shortly.
SCARBOROUGH: The paragon of journalism herself --
GEIST: Yes. To respond to an attack from who?
SCARBOROUGH: Barbara Walters.
GEIST: The ladies at The View yesterday --
BRZEZINSKI: Barbara?
GEIST: -- who didn't appreciate his characterization of Hillary Clinton's rise to success.
BRZEZINSKI: What did they say?
GEIST: Well, let's watch.
[begin video clip]
BEHAR: Chris Matthews -- you know Chris, right, from MSNBC? -- this is the statement that he made. He said the reason that Hillary Clinton is "a United States Senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is that her husband messed around."
[...]
WALTERS: I was brought up, and I'm very careful here, as you know, I've been on with you for a long time, not to give my personal opinions. I had thought that people in news didn't do that. Forget it. The way to get ratings -- come out and slam.
[...]
BEHAR: It's almost like a pile-on of these men against her. And I think they're going to get the real backlash for it. It's, it's really an inappropriate statement, in my opinion.
[end video clip]
BRZEZINSKI: Oh my gosh.
SCARBOROUGH: I have seen Barbara Walters now say that three times this morning, and I am more stunned every time. She, I guess she has no shame. This is, after all, speaking of going for the ratings and journalistic standards -- this is a lady who brought on and encouraged Rosie O'Donnell to say that 9-11 was an inside job, that the American government was behind it, and that we were responsible -- we as Americans were responsible for the death of 3,000 human beings on 9-11.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: And Barbara Walters is also the person that sat there and smiled while Rosie O'Donnell, the person she hired --
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- to boost ratings, Rosie O'Donnell came on and said that Christians were as dangerous as Islamic radicals.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, and she raises the issue about whether or not journalists are supposed to express opinions, as we are in this sort of changing medium. If you've noticed here on cable, you get a lot of different takes on the political process. Chris had his take on this issue -- I disagreed with him. Having said that, I completely disagree with Barbara Walters that we cannot have opinions and still be trustworthy.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, do you know what Thomas Jefferson called that? The free marketplace of ideas.
GEIST: And by the way, have you watched Hardball lately? Chris doesn't make any apologies for giving his opinion.
BRZEZINSKI: No.
GEIST: That's sort of the point of the show.
BRZEZINSKI: And you don't like it, you don't watch it. But people watch it because they like what he has to say, and they like disagreeing with him. I think the best part of what we do is disagreeing and sort of picking apart the issues, and trying to figure out what's really going on. How can you if you can't express any opinions at all?
SCARBOROUGH: Americans grapple with the future of this country around breakfast tables, around -- in diners. That's what we do also. Now, let's go right now to our Washington bureau, NBC News' Washington bureau. David Shuster is there with an update and his latest Joy Behar imitation. David.
[laughter]
BRZEZINSKI: Does she need some medication?
SHUSTER: Yeah, you know, Joy Behar is well known for her political analysis. [rolls eyes] No, I mean, you know, here's my Joy Behar impersonation -- actually this could apply for everybody on The View: "Oh, Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews gave his opinion. Ohhhhh." I mean, come on. Give us a break.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh my goodness --
SCARBOROUGH: From our Washington, DC, bureau --
BRZEZINSKI: David Shuster.
SCARBOROUGH: NBC's David Shuster.
GEIST: Well done.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Willie, I'm so glad we've got --
GEIST: He's going to be appearing at The Sands in Vegas with Rich Little doing impersonations this weekend.
[laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: He is.
GEIST: That's good stuff.
SCARBOROUGH: There's no doubt about it.
Scare tactics smack of desperation and Olbermann was right to call her on it.
Olbermann was correct and MMFM was correct in not listing his comments as right wing misinformation.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
I beg of you, please, go to 2:20 and watch the segment in question, then come back and tell me that Hillary did not say "Al-Qaeda."
And the Karl Rove analogy is apt, apt I tell you! He's not saying she IS Karl Rove, but that the tactic she used was popularized by him.
I found it neither funny nor original nor creative to any degree at all and certainly not "good stuff."
It was, rather, a crude, sneering, sophomoric insult that I found offensive.
Bear in mind that this was done in the course of rallying 'round the flag for good ol' boy Chris Matthews, praising to the skies the idea of journalists expressing opinions - and then Shuster mocked Behar for having an opinion about Chris Matthews.
You can keep circling the wagons, gang, but the noose is tightening. (As BOSS said, I do like a really juicy mixed metaphor.)
My immediate reaction surprised me also. I thought "what a nasty queen." I didn't believe that I actually thought it, and, yeah, I know Shuster recently married but it was the way he said it. It reminded me of of a part of the community that i've known who fit into that characteristic. It was as catty as the some of the ladies of the View are from time to time. Kind of ironic.
MOCKING WOMEN is something that rightwingers think is "good stuff" and "funny". This may explain why Limbaugh, Gingrich, Guilliani, and so very many other Republicans have so very many EX-WIVES.
Women do NOT think it's "funny" to be mocked, discounted, disrespected, ridiculed, underestimated, and dismissed. In fact, they have an understandable and justified reason to RESENT THE HELL out of the way they are treated in the rightwing mind.
So, KEEP IT UP, you Rightwing Misogynists. Laugh it up about those damn women, their voices, their hair, their outfits, their silly notions that they know anything about serious topics like "politics". Laugh it up, you paternalistic bigots and retrograde rednecks. The lockerroom guffaws and backslaps may bring you comfort, but, to use your own terminology in a poetic manner, payback will be a "bi--double t -- itch".
Secondly, I'm wondering whether you feign your piffling outrage when Condoleeza Rice is ravaged by liberals, calling her both racist and sexist names like Aunt Jemimah (sp)? Or, (and more likely), do you find it another matter when elitist, paternalistic bigots and sexists on the left deride conservative women because the latter have opinions on policy and morality that differ from the "lock-step" progressive thought police regarding how "modern" woman should behave.
I wish it were safe for the future of democracy in America We've gotten so far away from discussing issues and opinion has replaced reporting and debate.
But that's just my worthless opinion.
I just posted with a line break.
And I'm not so sure about people being able to defend against his blatherings. You've seen his shows, so you know that he totally dominates the conversation and unilaterally cuts people off all the time. He has the forum and the power to demean people whenever he wishes. Like I've said before, I don't think he's a partisan by any means, I just think he's an *ss
You threw out the accusation - which seemed to me, as well, to be extreme or indefensible - so show us the defense.
"KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST, ‘COUNTDOWN:’ The Republican debate the other night—you certainly did seem to come up fairly frequently. Do you think they’re doing you a favor, a campaign favor, an advertising favor, by mentioning you so often?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, D-NY, 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I guess if you don’t have anything positive to say about yourself or your record or your vision for America, that might be an alternative, but you know, I’m running my campaign. I can’t worry about what they’re doing."
That is NOT a good example to back up your point. And I believe it was you who first characterized it as "gushing."
Got any more you want to throw at me?
p.s., I never said Olbermann was middle of the road. Again, nice try.
Now let's break down the example you gave. Olbermann starts off by mentioning the fact that the Republicans bring her up so much in the debates. No real partisanship there right? I mean, he's talking about Republicans!
Next, he asks her if the Republicans are doing her a favor by mentioning her so much. How, exactly (and I'm guessing this is where you have the issue), is that in any way being partisan towards Clinton? "Are they doing you a favor?" is about as much of a non-partisan question as you can get, and I believe a valid one. The question was neither loaded nor did it engage in hyperbole. It was simply that, a question.
It's an easy question: you made the assertion re: KO's gushing support of a Democratic candidate. You were asked to show an example of such gushing support.
Instead of answering the question, you give us a conversation where KO asks HRC a question. There's no "gushing support" in the example you gave. Quit making up nonsense, trying to pass it off as fact. Again, and as usual, you've got NOTHING.
And Tommy, I only take you to task when I see a grievous error. I do not wish to personally offend you, so please do not take it that way.
So if he doesn't take them to task, and I'm assuming you mean ever, because if he does, just once, then saying "he doesn't take them to task" is invalid, then how do you explain the Al-Qaeda card quip? Was he being soft on Hillary then? or during that entire segment even? Here it is again.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
At 2:20 is the quote in question, but if you watch the whole thing, he goes after Hillary most strenuously. Throughout the entire segment.
Sorry Tommy, you're just wrong.
And no, I am happily married and not dating Keith ;-0) but I have a small crush on Stephen Colbert (he's back)!
That's not what you said; please don't try to pretend otherwise. You said nothing about Olbermann being "sympathetic" to Democrats, you said he "gushed" over them.
gush: v.int.; to make an excessive display of sentiment or enthusiasm
Either you're trying to evade the meaning of your own words, having realized you can't defend them, or you need to spend less time on MMFA and more time with a dictionary.
I didn't contend that point because it's true.
I contended your other point because I have found no evidence of Olbermann taking sides in the Democratic Presidential race.
Yes Tommy, that's exactly my point. Not only does Olbermann not endorse a particular candidate, he refuses to do so. That's so he can remain "objective." Sure, he leans to the left, but he doesn't give Democrats a free pass whatsoever. Case in point, the Al-Qaeda card quip. But that's just one, and there are other examples.
You have not offended me, this made my workday go by so much faster.
I'll tell you what, I'll concede the point that Olbermann is biased if you'll concede the point that Hannity's obvious bias is not equal to Olbermann's. Campaigning for a particular candidate is a major breach of journalistic ethics, and Olbermann has refused to do so.
Oh, please, indeed. Here we have the plaintive wail Tommy so often emits when pinned down. "Ignore what I said! It doesn't matter what I said! It's up to you to ignore what I said and figure out what I actually meant and what I meant was whatever seems to work in my favor at the moment!"
The present moment, it seems, being one where "gush" and "non-confrontational" mean the same thing. Humpty Dumpty would be impressed.
Okay, I'm done with this.
That argument is simply dishonest. No other word will do.
You referred to Olbermann "gush[ing] over some Democrat." When asked for an example, the only thing you came up with was a single case of him asking a non-hostile question of Hillary Clinton.
And now your failure to provide support for your argument becomes an obligation on someone else's part to defend a claim no one has made? Utter, utter nonsense.
I have demonstrably proven your premise false, and when taken to task, you deny and change the subject. Talk about a Karl Rove tactic.
"that is what I find refreshing, instead of watching Hannity swoon over some Republican, or Olbermann gush over some Democrat - that is what I find anything but refreshing." -Tommy.
Tommy, that was your original point, which I contended. And very effectively, I might add.
Hey, bro', didn't you read the part where I referred to "a claim no one has made?" No one here has claimed Olbermann is neutral. The objection was to your contention that he is over the top, which is what "gush" means.
Maybe you should put aside the dictionary and pick up a reading primer instead.
You run like a thief from the meaning of your own words, demanding of others they interpret them in whatever way is required to favor you. That, I say again, is thoroughly dishonest. But no longer surprising.
You show me a dictionary that describes "gushing" and "non-confrontational" as synonyms, and you'll have a point. Until then, your only point is the one on top of your head.
"Edwards and Olbermann made light of way the right is going nutty over the fact that a Hillary Clinton volunteer–who, by the way, was a registered Republican and a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and has contributed no money to the Clinton campaign–was allowed to ask a question during the debate last night.
As Keith put it, if the Republicans can’t handle the Democrats, how can they handle Al Qaeda?"
btw, in case you've never seen it, that's from O Brother Where Art Thou. It's what his wife says near the end of the movie. I was trying to inject a little humor into this, but I guess you failed to see that.
Instead we get a press that wants to talk about haircuts, the appropriateness of emotional responses, whether emotional responses are faked, shrill voices, fake controversies, teenage indiscretions, imagined love affairs, who's more likeable and millions of other pieces of meaningless and inconsequential bull.
If Matthews hates Hillary because of her politics that's fine, come out and say that and tell us what he finds so loathsome. But this isn't what he is doing, he is being personal and has an agenda that seems to be based completely on emotion with no thought of politics or logic.
In fact they picked up right wing talking points and treated them as facts.
But let's keep this in the present.
What Republican candidate has been relentlessly attacked the way HRC was over the 5 days before the NH primary?
Ooooh, he's not running? Well . . . someone did mention that Romney's shoulders weren't really wide enough to land a 747 - maybe a 727?
None of these are wildly speculative or overly negative and put together wouldn't match 1/10th of the wildly speculative negative coverage HRC got from everywhere prior to NH.
In fact I heard a report today some of Guiliani's campaign staff have put off receiving paychecks which means the campaign may be in money trouble. Where's the wall-to-wall hysterical coverage about the former Republican front-runner?
When the parties pick their nominees Obama will be the target of the tsunami.
If not it will be status quo anti-HRC.
The script has already been written, they just jumped the gun.
The second largest impediment? The (Corporate-Media induced) acceptance of outre "election" results, based upon secret "counting" of ballots, with results that often fly in the face of both evidence and reason. I suppose I'd better slip on over to Dennis' site, and make a contribution to help him pay for the recount. Even though Dems are involved, I am fearful that Diebold is running a test case for another November outrage.
Then I got to thinking that perhaps it IS the bloggers – more so than just the 24/7 news cycle – that have contributed most to the phenomenon. It is really just in the past year or two that these MSM pundits have gotten so personal and over-the-top with their commentary. Could it be because they feel their audience slipping away to the recent rising interest in internet blogging, that they now feel they have to sound like the bloggers too? Have we created our own monsters?
No, that's *your* issue. Maybe there should be a new type of troll, an Olberman troll. Let's turn every topic into an Olberman debate.
Olberman is not the topic of this article. Not even close. Yet, as with nearly ever item MMFA posts, Sue brings up Olbrman. That is why she is an "Olberman troll."
Oh boy. Do you understand how you just contradicted yourself? Look at the words "not tell." What are you telling me not to do? You are telling not to tell someone else what not to tell. Where is Derida when we need him?
Your point is absurd. Sure there is a connection. But there is also a connection between Shuster and Bush's lies. Did Shuster do a good job debunking Bush's lies, or did he play court stenographer? You see how anyone can take their pet topic and bring it into any conversation?
All I know is, this site is supposed to catalog and correct CONSERVATIVE mis-information. When Olbermann starts spouting that, and it doesn't show up on this site, then I'll start getting angry.
I posted on the CNN Bennett thread and did not bring it up.
But hey if lies is what you like to do , go ahead.
The fact that you actually know which thread you *didn't* bring up Olberman is really, really telling.
But hey he said
she brings it up on EVERY THREAD.
That was a lie.
Sue, I do respect you, don't get me wrong, but I do also believe that you are completely wrong on this issue.
Also, he's used the same phrase for Bush before too, was he not playing into our fears as well?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/320849/playing_the_al_qaeda_card/
And no, I am aware of no poster that will bring up the same point on every single thread. What if on every item, I brought up Bush's lies about the Iraq war, and the debate was then about aluminum tubes, yellow cake, etc? That would make me a "Bush lies troll."
It is absoluetly absurd how almost every single thread gets derailed because of Olberman's supposed sins.
The topic is derailed because all the comments become about attacking defending Olberman, and the item never gets discussed.
Oh, I know! My topic is the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Isn't it hypocritical for Shuster not to mention this, when it is so much worse than his opinion on The View? Why do you hate the Tibetian people, Sue? Answer that question.
I want to know why you hate the Tibetian people so much? You rail against Keith Olberman, but you don't say anything about the Chinese occupation, which is so much worse.
You hypocrite!
Ha, topic she has chosen to explore? Each and every freaking thread, each and every freaking day?. Too funny!
Yes, I have been exposed!
If Olbermann left, who would there be? Where are the other hosts, presenting a view from a "leftist" perspective?
You know what Sue's comment would be if some right-wing hate group dropped an atomic bomb was dropped on Chicago?//
"Yes, that may be bad, but it's nothing compared to Olberman's being a hypocrite!"
By the way, Olberman is not my hero.
And please don't attack me for this, I'm already going to hell, I don't need insult added to injury. >:-)
Seriously, then Jeter is wrong too. (Though brought it up in a light-hearted manner.) You really can't deny that Olberman is pulled into so many threads, so that the topic cannot be discussed? It doesn't matter how outrageous the misinformation is; we are not supposed to feel outraged because Olberman is supposedly a hypocrite (I don't even know what about, since I never watch him).
It would be like if Ted Kennedy proposed a health insurance plan, and we wanted to discuss the merits of the plan, and all we heard is "Chapaquidika, Chapaquidika!"
Or, let's say Bush is accused of saying something he didn't, and we said "Aluminum tubes, aluminum tubes!"
(The comments wouldn't let me post that African country where Saddam did not try to purchase yellowcake, because that African country sounded like a racial slur!)
Good now that I have your attention...it was ME & NOT SUE who brought Olbermann into this. So please leave her be...My post is lost among the clutter here but here's what I wrote:
Obviously the MSNBC team sticks together. Shuster's behavior says it all. It's not so much that he made fun of one of the ladies on The View, but he apparently thinks Matthews remarks about Hillary weren't obnoxious or a smear... So I'm gonna give him my *Worst Person In The World Award* since you know who will never do it ;-)
- jeter2 / Friday January 11, 2008 3:02:18 PM EST
No one is attacking Sue for being different, so you are just making things up. Look at my specific criticism. Sue brings up Olberman on nearly every thread, so that she derails the topic.
I personally am trying to combat this now so that we can move past it and actually talk about the misinformation.
Now what if a lot of posters brought up the absurdity of that attack against Bush, but I said "Bush lies Bush lies Bush lies, look what he said about Iraq's nuclear program..."
That would be derailing the topic. Each topic deserves its own honest discussion. We can talk about Shuster's behaviour here without brining in Olberman, can't we?
The whole time you have been defending Sue because you agree with her! Here is the same Olberman nonsense dragged in. Of course, why not take Olberman to task for not bringing up the Chinese occupation of Tibet. That is way worse than anything else here. And it just shows me that because you didn't bring up this occupation, you don't care about the Tibetian people.
So let me ask you Jlyons, why do you hate the Tibetian people? Why are you such a hypocrite?
You see how easy it is to play that game? We can always bring up something worse that was not mentioned, and then make our opponenents answer our questions.
See how your illogic words? Oh, and you did call my behaviour "Nazi-like." But I guess that is your choice, too.
3rd or 4th comment
J, most on here do not see it that way. Olbermann compares Hillary Clinton to Karl Rove and claims she played the al qeida card. That gets not press on this site and most users give it a free pass. Now if Matthews or the other pundits said it there would be a riot. We would have the 40 or 50 sarcastic remarks.
- SueEld / Friday January 11, 2008 3:37:48 PM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
OK, I will admit you do fascinate me. The only other woman I've seen so obsessed with a man was Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. You don't have any rabbits do you?
It was Sue who then had to become strident way, dragging Olberman into yet another thread.
Why do you hate the Tibetian people so much? You rail against Kieth Olberman, but what the Chinese government does is way worse. I can only assume that you don't care about Tibetians, your outrage is selective, and you are a hypocrite.
(See how easy it is to play the selective outrage game?)
I do not know, i would not say I hate them, I would say I feel bad for them.
Obviously, you are a hypocrite, worse than Olberman, who you criticize so much.
Oh, but here's a better suggestion. Could you possible be honest and specific in your comments? You know, like if the thread is about Shuster, actually talk about Shuster?
Now be careful how you answer...I have a box of wine for ya ;-)
Sueeld posted the 3rd or 4th comment on this thread and as usual, somehow mentioned Keith. I know that it is a condition that she simply cannot help but you did not mention it first, Sueeld, as usual did.
Now can I have my wine, pleaseeeeeee. Reading Sueeld's post leaves me in need of a drink. ;-)
Well be that as it may, I think Sue, myself & others probably get on the bandwagon about Olbermann because MMFA features him here with his very own thread doing repeats of what's already been discussed. Now while I realize Keith can't take Shuster, Matthews, Tucker or any other MSNBC employee to task, it's seems a tad hypocritical to feature him jumping on everybody else.
But hey that's how it goes.
Now my lovely Pearlene here's your box of wine, oops careful there you almost dropped it, wouldn't want you to spill even a drop ;-)
Happy Friday!
"Now it’s just another reality show starring an eccentric old gas-bag spouting off to whomever is present about his political likes and dislikes and just generally acting like a fool."
I nominate Tex's post on the first page of this thread as the best summary of the article by Media Matters.
I'm not quite sure if her getting teary-eyed had anything to do with her win at NH (I’m under the impression that what made people vote for her rather than Obama was the ABC debate which gave a glimpse on how the Republicans would run against Obama if he becomes the nominee. The whole “he’s inexperienced” line the Republicans used almost in a mantra may scared voters into thinking that Obama’s not quite up to task to get over that hurdle), but if nothing else, Clinton’s win was a triumph. It’s a triumph because her win was a complete smack in the face to those who wrote her off as a has-been before people cast their vote. She proved without a doubt that she can prevail over anything, especially when so many factors were set against her.
I think the attention her "moment" received has much more to do with the MSM's distrust of HRC. I heard a few pundits comment about past theatrics Bill Clinton employed to get media attention and I think they're painting HRC with the same brush.
I don't dispute that many women would interpret the media attention as sexism but I think it's more a case of jumping on HRCs flaws because she is as polished and smooth as a candidate can be.
He was also in "love" with George Allen as "someone you could sit around and have a beer with". As we used to say back in Texas, Chris is like the Pecos River - a mile wide and an inch deep.
So Joy Behar is a comedian - GWB has a Harvard MBA - I would rather have Ms. Behar at the controls than George the fighter pilot.
Besides, who the heck annointed Chris Matthews as some sort of pundit - he works for MSNBC and he talks, a lot. At least we know that Joy Behar can support herself if the gig at "The View" goes away - what is Chris going to do?
I may despise the woman's politcal views but she did the right thing by bringing the issue of Chris Matthews' sexism to light on The View.
From the looks of Shuster in this picture, it looks like Matthews probably planted his defense in his ear when he bought him his morning martini.
Anyhow, I'm glad we all see through the network "family" loyalty thing going on here. I just hope the rest of America does also.
http://911blogger.com/node/7367
Now I know why Chris Matthews goes on without being checked. What the video shows is a dangerous process. In one word, you can explain the dynamics going on at MSNBC: Arrogance.
Talk about shutting out the rest of the world. I have never scene it done in the arrogant fashion displayed. They don't need confirm to any social norms because they have themselves. It appears that nothing will stop the out of control commentary coming out of MSNBC. Or does it?
What happens when candidates or politicians don't hear what the people are saying? They get rid of them. Hillary Clinton's voters demonstrated how effective protest can be. In spite of the total negative media attacks, she won anyway. People don't want to hear the attacks anymore, and now it is at the point where it will help Clinton more than it will hurt her.
Beyond all the above is a very important question. How much influence should the media be allowed to interfere with our political process. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC are spending what amount to millions of dollars in prime advertising spots to get their negative hits out on Clinton. This is free material for opponents of Clinton. How fair is this kind of bias?
You would think, after New Hampshire, the media would back off. No such think; they have become even more verbal about Clinton, as if they needed to slow her momentum down. When it comes to Chris Matthews' support for Barack Obama, I question his motives big time. Will it still be there if Obama wins or will he turn on him for a conservative like Giuliani? What the power monkey "give it he take it away."
Joseph
That was a very bad Andrew "Dice" Clay impression Shuster has. I was waiting for his overhead cigarette reach and sexist nursery rhymes.
But seriously, there seems to be an extremely low bar for what is being called "opinion." Opinion must be based on facts. Walters is incorrect in labeling Matthews' comments as opinion. She should have called it what it was, "BS." Shuster's whiny impression is also BS, and even my opening joke is BS. None of it reaches the level to be called opinion.
Let's see. Who is more insignificant? Morning Joke, Chris Matthews or Barbara Walters?
The answer isn't Barbara Walters. Both of them on MSNBC are. Because they are on the Titanic going down with what is left of the talent there.
Media Matters: Who cares what anyone says on Mess-NBC. Pick something else to train your Video Tapes on.
I say hurrah for David Schuster, one of TV's better reporters. Joy Behar is an occasionally funny blowhard...but taking her off-the-cuff wisecracks as serious political discourse is ridiculous.
I love Media Matters, but not when it becomes tendentious as opposed to fair.
I was really surprised to see Shuster do this. Not so much Scarborough. As this site points out the media is a huge obstacle for Democrats. Matthews has been trashing our candidates since the early 90's with impunity. For example in 2000 Matthews kept repeating the lie that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, EVEN AFTER HE HAD ADMITTED HE KNEW THIS WAS NOT TRUE. Yet he and others like him have been allowed to spread venom toward and misinformation about Democratic candidates with impunity. The rest of the media circle the wagons when one of their own is under fire rather than inform the public about this dishonest behavior. That David Shuster would mock a woman who expressed dismay at Matthew's blatantly sexist comments is despicable and unprofessional. Joy Behar was just giving voice to what many women are feeling - shock that a mainstream pundit would be so sexist.
What is good about Matthews extreme behavior is that the public is finally waking up to it and some in the media are beginning to speak out. Howard Kurtz has finslly gotten the guts to complain about this kind of behavior. Even more surprising, Pat Buchanan was on the McLaughlin Group and complained loudly about the sexism in the media towards Hillary. He said both his wife and sister (Bay, the very conservative operative) were outraged by it. This is a huge step in the right direction. In addition, Michael Medved actually said Hillary was right to stand up to Tim Russert when he played a clip taking statements by Bill Clinton out of context. Maybe the end of the world really is near!
Too many Democrats are willing to allow the media to trash Democratic candidates that they are not supporting. Republicans never do this. We need to take a page out of their playbook and raise a huge outcry whenever any of our candidates are treated in this manner. If we had done this in 2000 we would not be in this terrible mess. Yet how many of us bought the media and right wing spin about Gore and voted for Nader? It's time we wake up.