Fox News' Powers: Media Matters' criticism of Matthews "very fair"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Kirsten Powers called Chris Matthews' comment that "the reason [Hillary Clinton is] a U.S. senator ... is her husband messed around" was "totally inappropriate," adding that she has "been appalled at the way [Matthews] treats Hillary Clinton." Responding to O'Reilly's claim that he was "shocked and appalled" that the "big propaganda machine" Media Matters is "ripping up the far-left people at MSNBC," Powers also said that "what [Media Matters is] doing is going after Chris Matthews for attacking Hillary, and I think it's a very fair criticism."
On the January 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers and host Bill O'Reilly discussed Media Matters for America's coverage of MSNBC host Chris Matthews' recent comments about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), 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" O'Reilly asserted that "Media Matters is a big propaganda machine, and they're ripping up the far-left people at MSNBC. And I, for one, am shocked and appalled." In response, Powers stated that "what [Media Matters is] doing is going after Chris Matthews for attacking Hillary, and I think it's a very fair criticism," adding that she has "been appalled at the way [Matthews] treats Hillary Clinton." Later in the segment, Powers asserted, "what Chris Matthews said was totally inappropriate."
On the previous day's edition of The O'Reilly Factor, as Media Matters has noted, guest Jane Hall, a Fox News contributor, also expressed disapproval of remarks like Matthews'. She noted Matthews' comments about "how [Hillary Clinton] got elected not on her own merits, but because of his [Bill Clinton] fooling around, as he put it. ... He said she wanted to bury his [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] campaign and what would she do with the body? That she wanted to strangle Obama in the crib." Hall then stated, "[E]very woman I know saw the media coverage declaring her dead and said, 'You know, I've been through that. I've experienced that kind of sexism.' " O'Reilly asked, "So there was a backlash against that?" Hall responded, "Oh, absolutely."
Additionally, on the January 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly himself criticized Matthews' remarks as a "personal attack," adding that "it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not."
From the January 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight: There is a split in liberal America. The far left seems to like Barack Obama, and the less far left favors Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the best example of this is Media Matters, the smear machine that spits out anti-conservative propaganda on a daily basis. Those people are now after Democrat Chris Matthews because he's brutally criticized Hillary Clinton.
On another front, the insane left -- Daily Kos -- tried to convince Democrats in Michigan to disrupt the Republican primary there. Now, traditional Democrats can't be happy about that.
[...]
O'REILLY: With us now, a woman who stands for -- I don't exactly know what, but I'm sure she does. Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers. Ooh, ooh, you got this little -- and I want to point out to everybody in a fair and balanced way -- the Republican's right hasn't really, you know -- Rush Limbaugh is hammering Huckabee pretty brutally --
POWERS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- but other than that, this isn't the warfare we're seeing on the left.
POWERS: Oh, see, I don't think that's true. I think that all of the sort of movement conservatives, the National Review types, those people are very against Huckabee. There's been lots of complaints about him, and you saw even Fred Thompson -- I mean, he was giving --
O'REILLY: Yeah, but that was a debate, of course.
POWERS: -- but he was giving voice to something that a lot of conservatives feel and that you will see on the blogs.
O'REILLY: Are you going to sit there and tell me that the vitriol in this is equal? You just heard Roseanne Barr. Now, Roseanne Barr, doesn't she run he Democratic National Committee?
POWERS: Yeah, exactly. What does she have to do with the Democratic Party? I mean, I don't -- if she was representative of what was going on, then I think you would have a fair point, but who listens to Roseanne Barr? I can tell you how many people make a decision based on what she says: zero. Zero.
O'REILLY: Media Matters is a big propaganda machine, and they're ripping up the far-left people at MSNBC. And I, for one, am shocked and appalled.
POWERS: Yeah, well, I mean, what they're doing is going after Chris Matthews for attacking Hillary, and I think it's a very fair criticism. I mean, I shouldn't admit to this, but I watch his show because I'm a political junkie, and I've been pretty appalled at the way he treats Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's very, very biased --
O'REILLY: It's not just him --
POWERS: -- biased against --
O'REILLY: -- it's all of them over there.
POWERS: --biased against -- but he in particular is so pro-Obama and so against Hillary that it's just -- it's very unfair. And some of the things he says about her, I think, really cross the line.
O'REILLY: OK, now here's the wider question. After this is all over, do they reconcile, these nuts? Do they come together under either a banner of Hillary Clinton or a banner of Barack Obama?
POWERS: They will definitely reconcile, and I think you're exaggerating what's going on.
O'REILLY: You do?
POWERS: I don't think there's anything --
O'REILLY: You think I'm exaggerating?
POWERS: Yeah, I don't think there's anything unusual going on. I think what's happening is you're seeing a vigorous debate going on in the Democratic Party, which is supposed to happen in a primary, Bill --
O'REILLY: I know --
POWERS: -- and there's nothing unusual about it.
O'REILLY: I know you're best friends with the cowardly lion and Toto.
POWERS: Oh, yeah, right.
O'REILLY: I know you live there in --
POWERS: Please.
O'REILLY: -- a very, very nice condo in the land of Oz.
POWERS: Uh-huh.
O'REILLY: But if you're going to sit there and tell me that it's not unusual for a Media Matters, which is dedicated to killing me and anybody else who's not a loon on the left, OK -- you're going to sit there and tell me that they're ripping up MSNBC, and that's not unusual?
POWERS: Well, MSNBC isn't --
O'REILLY: Of course it's unusual.
POWERS: You're talking about people coming in and uniting -- MSNBC has nothing to do with it. Chris Matthews has nothing to do with it. The people who are the activists and the bloggers, the ones that are also -- who are complaining about Chris Matthews as well, and some of them are on the Obama side and some of them are on Hillary's side.
O'REILLY: But what I am telling you is --
POWERS: -- and some of them are on the John Edwards side.
O'REILLY: -- the bitterness is unprecedented. You didn't see it with Al Gore. You didn't see it with John Kerry -- on the left I'm talking about. You didn't see this kind of bitterness. Come on, get in the game, Powers.
POWERS: I don't, because I think -- I just -- Bill, I think you're exaggerating what's going on. I don't think Roseanne Barr or, you know, Chris Matthews define what's going on.
O'REILLY: OK, David Geffen --
POWERS: Ultimately --
O'REILLY: -- the big money man --
POWERS: Ultimately, sure. David Geffen has a problem with the Clintons.
O'REILLY: -- Clintons are liars.
POWERS: He has a problem with the Clintons. OK.
O'REILLY: I'm not exaggerating, I'm reporting.
POWERS: But the idea that the Democratic Party is somehow fractured, I mean, they're more united than ever.
O'REILLY: They're more united than ever?
POWERS: Yes, absolutely.
O'REILLY: They're gouging each other's eyes out.
POWERS: But it's a primary. It's a primary. That's what happens in primaries. Democrats aren't crowning people. They're having a vigorous debate.
O'REILLY: But it didn't happen in 2000 and 2004.
POWERS: They're having a vigorous debate, and I don't think people were as excited about the candidates. You have two, in particular, really strong candidates.
O'REILLY: So they're overly excited, maybe.
POWERS: Well, people are very passionate about Obama --
O'REILLY: Who do you support, who do you like, Hillary or Obama?
POWERS: I like both of them.
O'REILLY: You like both of them?
POWERS: Yes.
O'REILLY: So what does that mean? You -- when the New York primary comes, you live in New York, you got to rip your ballot? Are you going to vote for both?
POWERS: Well, are you going to tell everybody who you're voting for?
O'REILLY: You're going to get arrested. Then we're going to bail you out.
POWERS: Are you going to tell -- are you going to tell everyone who you're voting for?
O'REILLY: What?
POWERS: You going to tell everyone who you're voting for?
O'REILLY: No.
POWERS: Yeah.
O'REILLY: But I'm asking you who you support at this point.
POWERS: Well, I'm not - you know, I'm probably more inclined towards Hillary, but I like both of them, and I would support both of them. I think they're both really good candidates.
O'REILLY: You like John McCain, too, right?
POWERS: I like John McCain. I would not vote for John McCain, though.
O'REILLY: You like me, right?
POWERS: Um, let's not push it.
O'REILLY: Powers, I like both of them. All right, so you're -- right now, and you can change your mind, I'm sure.
POWERS: Right. Well, that's the thing. I mean, I don't --
O'REILLY: All right.
POWERS: I don't -- it's like I said, I'm inclined in that direction.
O'REILLY: So you're in the Hillary camp.
POWERS: Yes.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, so all in all, you have come on the program and speaking to millions of people now. You're saying that there's nothing unusual about this hatred between the far left and the moderate left.
POWERS: There's not hatred. It's not hatred.
O'REILLY: It's not.
POWERS: No, it's not. It's just --
O'REILLY: Saying that the woman deserves to be a senator because her husband messed around? That's not hatred?
POWERS: OK, Roseanne -- but that's -- what Chris Matthews said was totally inappropriate.
O'REILLY: That's not hatred?
POWERS: I don't know if it's hatred. I think it's totally inappropriate. I think it completely crossed the line, but I don't think that it's hatred.
O'REILLY: All right. Always good to see you, Kirsten. Thank you very much for coming on.
POWERS: Thank you.
Funny stuff. Yes, Matthews has been very biased against Hillary Clinton in the coverage I've watched. So a FOX News political analyst (a Clinton supporter BTW which is mentioned in the text of the interview but not in the MMFA writeup) comes on and says so. She's right IMO but she does support Clinton which O Reilly had to drag out of her.
So the "right-wing" FOX is seen as bashing Matthews anti-Hillary bias when in reality it's just a Clinton supporter in FOX clothing.
MMFA, you better be careful. You made two posts this week that destroyed prior posts that you have made.
This post, for example could be titled: "Fox News is actually Fair and Balanced." This about it. You are showing that Fox News has a Democrat on who disagrees with O'Reilly, which is always the case.
Then this week you made a post demonstrating that John McCain's excuse for not supporting the Bush tax cuts was baseless, which has been the Conservative argument for why he is a Maverick forever. But, in the past, you have said it is misinformation to call him a Maverick.
Get your arguments straight.
1. Fox News is neither fair nor balanced.
2. John McCain is not a maverick.
The clip MMFA posted does not change either of these truths.
Just because there happens to be a Hillary supporter that works over at FOX Noise doesn't suddenly mean that she or FOX are Fair or Balanced..... No more than Matthews is a 'lefty' because he happens to work at MSNBC.
Matthews has a big time issue as it pertains to Hillary, it was pointed out that MMFA was sited (on FOX) as being correct in its critizism of him and Hillary.
With that said, I wonder where the MMHRC thing comes from? Because I thought this site was a Soros funded site? or is it more expedient to blame Hillary (being election season?)
I need some asprin just trying to figure this all out......
I couldn't agree more. The left-wingnut supporters are NOT fair OR balanced, either. However, they do seem to think only they have the right to dispell that truth by stressing everyone else are "morons" if they don't agree lock/stock/barrel with everything any left-wingnut thinks is fact.
Do you think CM's comments towards HRC have been fair? Is there a Republican candidate who has been held to the level of scrutiny in their emotions/reactions that HRC has? If so, who are the people treating the candidate on the Republican side in this way and how has the mainstream media played a part or exposed the behavior?
Media Matters is a big propaganda machine, and they're ripping up the far-left people at MSNBC.
Yeah right, BillO! Chris Matthews (or anyone at MSNBC ) is “far-left”? The only propaganda I hear is coming from Faux Noise.
As usual, anything that isn’t on plane, or to the right of, “Fox conservative” is “FAR-LEFT” - Fox scare word #236. Go get them NBC commies, Bill! You IDIOT!
"The far left seems to like Barack Obama, and the less far left favors Hillary Clinton."
What's telling is that Billo divides democrats into the "far left" and the "less far left" What a giveaway! "Less far left," what the hell does that mean?
Interesting
OReilly is wrong becuase MMFA has not been critical of Keith Olbermann despite his disgusting smear of Hillary last week saying she was playing the al-qeida card. He gets a free pass.
If you want to pretend Sue doesn't have a history of commenting in this manner so be it, but I can see why people are losing their patience. What right does she have to demand respect and civility from others when her MO is to spam KO comments in close to every thread and then doesn't have the decency to respond to other posters when challenge? Saying "I have the right to an opinion" is not a substitute for an argument.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
Here's the video, and if I remember correctly, the segment in question starts at 2:20.
Again, she mentions Al-Qaeda, which in my book, is playing the "Al-Qaeda card."
Really, no smear here.
She can't get teary, she can't mention Al Qaeda .... can she sh*t, or will that be interpreted as improperly tactical too ?
If Obama ever mentions Al Qaeda you can bet I'll be right on top of it. >:-)
- I just said she can mention Al Qaeda any time she wants. The context was unacceptable. Not sure what part of that isn't clear as Pearlene delineates below. She was using a Republican type talking point. I'd like to think Democrats are better than that.
She can't get teary, she can't mention Al Qaeda .... can she sh*t, or will that be interpreted as improperly tactical too ?
-Tactical maneuvers have their place. Who said they didn't? Just not THIS tactic. Obviously you disagree.
If Obama ever mentions Al Qaeda you can bet I'll be right on top of it. >:-)
- Go for it.
- atheist / Saturday January 12, 2008 9:26:13 PM EST
Side-note: LOL, Keith? Keith? I bet they have a file of Sueeld’s e-mails and security at the door of MSNBC headquarters has her picture.
And no Sueeld, I don't love you but you are the MOST fixated woman on Keith since Glenn Close and Michael Douglas.
Hillary has my vote in the general election IF Obama does not win however both she and Bill are in a pickle. The "Black" vote which has always gone their way, has another GOOD option. With that option Hillary and Bill must MUST be careful in their approach. MLK and the civil is not an option for them to use against Obama. IMO, as a 73 year old African American woman, I don't need Hillary's nor Bill explanation for MLK or the civil rights movement, period. Yes I love Bill and by extension and in her own right I like Hillary but don't assume anything!. Obama has won the right to run and I have not felt this happy with a candidate since Robert F. Kennedy. If Hillary runs a descent campagne and Obama loses, I will back her but I don't appreciate the NH/MLK & Civil Rights/Johnson" tactics and IF they continue for the first time I may sit the election out. Keep in mind I'm running on my own personal principals and I've taken a lot of crap from Republicans but I WILL NOT TAKE the same from Hillary just because she wants to win. This may be my last election and I WILL vote my principals or not vote at all!
Hasn't O'Lielly said in the past that he makes a distinctinction between liberals and "the far left?" He certainly didn't do so in the above quotation.
"...the insane left-Daily Kos-"
How can O'Lielly keep continuing to say with a straight face that he "doesn't do personal attacks." I guess he lives in his own egocentric world where a personal attack isn't a personal attack if he's the one who utters it. Calling the people at Daily Kos "insane" is a personal attack-an attack that right-wingers like O'Lielly
and conservatives in general would agree with, but a personal attack nontheless.
Also, if Chris Matthews is "far left," then I'm Pope Benedict. Yeah, Matthews is a vocal opponent of the Iraq War, but so is Pat Buchanan and the John Birch Society, probably the most conservative organization in America. He's liberal on a few social issues, but hardly is passionate or outspoken when it comes to them. He once said that Al Gore "grew a beard and got weird." He has praised, sometimes slavishly so, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Virtually everything he's said regarding Hillary Clinton is either neutral or negative. Although he soured on President Bush because of the Iraq War, he actually voted for Bush over Gore in 2000. I don't get the conservative myth that Matthews is some sort of liberal mouthpiece.
Yep, I think Bill O's real reason was to repeat the MSNBC is "left" talking point once again.
MSNBC, CNN & the broadcast news channels are CORPORATE. This bias means that they seldom have stories that mean anything, and when they do report real news, it is not covered in any depth. Faux News, however, is decidedly a wing of the Republican Party.
Fox News never deviates from its rabid conservatism.
The only reason this article is here is because Fox News is so dumb, they think Matthews is "far left".
To me there is a difference between hearing someone say something that is obviously there opinion and then there is these other sort of well designed types of statements where there is an entire structure of rhetoric created to go along with it, all of it harboring an intent to fully convince you of one side of an argument while selectively omitting pieces of information which could potentially sway you toward the other side of the argument. (Whew)!
In other words this attitude that says we have done all of your thinking for you, now we are giving you your opinion. O’reilly’s entire attitude just oozes of this. By the time I was done watching the clip, it was Orielly who had me shaking my head in absurdity, not Mathews.
(Sorry bout the long-winded post.)