About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Today, Russert, Mitchell, and Lauer highlight Clinton's tax returns, don't mention McCain's

April 09, 2008 2:27 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: On Today, Matt Lauer, Tim Russert, and Andrea Mitchell discussed Bill and Hillary Clinton's tax returns, speculating about, in Lauer's words, the "actual impact" the returns will have on "those so-called blue-collar workers that are so much a part of her base." They did not mention that Sen. John McCain has yet to release his tax returns, nor did they speculate as to what impact McCain's family's wealth would have on his ability to connect with "blue-collar workers."

60 Comments

During the April 7 edition of NBC's Today, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asserted of the April 4 release of Sen. Hillary Clinton's and former President Bill Clinton's recent tax returns, "The numbers are stunning," and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert stated that "the tax returns, $109 million, $15 million a year," adding, "The average, median income in Pennsylvania is $46,000." After co-host Matt Lauer asked, "[W]hat is the actual impact on those so-called blue-collar workers that are so much a part of her base?" Russert responded, "We don't know. Will there people who say, 'This is Washington as usual, this is cashing in on the presidency'? Or, 'Hey, they worked that hard; they earned it'?" Russert, Mitchell, and Lauer did not note that Sen. John McCain has yet to release his tax returns; nor did any of them speculate as to what impact McCain's family's wealth would have on his ability to connect with "blue-collar workers."

A Media Matters for America review of the Nexis news database found no instances of Russert discussing McCain's tax returns in the last three months.*

From the April 7 edition of NBC's Today:

MITCHELL: [Former Clinton campaign adviser Mark] Penn's departure comes on top of tax returns that may raise a few eyebrows, as Clinton faces critical primaries in blue-collar states. In Montana Sunday, she tried to explain her newfound wealth.

CLINTON [video clip]: If you follow the news, you know that for the first time in Bill's or my life, we actually make more money than $250,000 a year. We didn't ask for those tax cuts; we didn't want them.

MITCHELL: The numbers are stunning: $109 million before taxes, an instant target for Saturday Night Live.

[begin video clip]

AMY POEHLER (SNL cast member): It turns out that over those years, my husband and I made about $109 million in income.

DARRELL HAMMOND (SNL cast member): That's a bunch of money.

POEHLER: We made a lot of money. As I said yesterday, most of that money -- about $50 million -- was made by Bill doing what he loves to do best -- talking to people.

HAMMOND: That is what I love to do best. Talk to people. Nothing more.

[end video clip]

MITCHELL: The tax returns reveal Bill Clinton is paid very well to talk -- almost $52 million in paid speeches. And the Clintons earned another combined $40 million from their books.

[...]

RUSSERT: She has to look like a winner. She looks -- has to show a campaign of strength. Every article today, Matt, talks about the struggling campaign had to release its campaign strategist. That, coupled with the tax returns, $109 million, $15 million a year. The average, median income in Pennsylvania is $46,000. This is not the kind of double-punch story the Clintons want two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary.

LAUER: Well -- well, let's stop and let's talk about that for a second. Do you think those numbers -- and they're big numbers, $109 million, $33 million in taxes, by the way, and $10 million given to charity -- what is the actual impact on those so-called blue-collar workers that are so much a part of her base?

RUSSERT: We don't know. Will there people who say, "This is Washington as usual, this is cashing in on the presidency"? Or, "Hey, they worked that hard; they earned it"?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (April 09, 2008 2:41 pm ET)
         
      But.... the fact that Gramps married a rich woman doesn't gel with his Mavericky facade.... therefore, the Corporate Media Bobbleheads won't bother to mention it. It adds nothing to their scripted narrative.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (April 09, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
           

        But.... the fact that Gramps married a rich woman doesn't gel with his Mavericky facade

        Yet another example of Right-Wing Hypocrisy.  John Kerry got all sorts of grief back in 2004 over his marriage to Teresa Heinz.  Not a peep about McCain marrying into money.

        Or the fact that he had an ongoing affair with his current wife while he was still married to his first wife.....

        Report Abuse
      • Author by deeznuts (April 09, 2008 3:17 pm ET)
           

        I can't find the link now. But I recently read that Fox's Neil Cavuto carped about Clinton being a millionaire who still draws a Presidential pension.

        No mention, of course, of HW Bush or Nancy Reagan doing the same.

        It's the same BS double-standard at play here. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by socal7425 (April 09, 2008 8:31 pm ET)
           

        I noticed Mitchell didn't play the rest of the SNL bit that skewered the media for being surprised that the Clinton's have made a lot of  money since they left the White House.  As Darrel Hammond (Bill Clinton) said: "When it was reported in all the papers that I got a $15 million advance on my book I was hoping the media wouldn't read the papers that day..and apparently they didn't." 

        I thought it was interesting that the media finds it hard to admit that they didn't find a damn thing incriminating the the tax returns and passed over without comment that the Clintons paid over $30 million in taxes and gave $10 million to charity.  One pundit even had the audacity to criticize Bill Clinton for giving only $1 million of the $6 million he made on his book "Giving" to charity.  Seems like one-sixth is pretty good,

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 2:47 pm ET)
         

      Blue-collar workers have helped elect millionaires to the White House & Congress for years. I doubt they'll make any huge distinction between the past wealthy office holders & Hillary Clinton. Nor will they bat an eyelash over McCain's zillions. And Obama ain't exactly a pauper.

      The wealth of these candidates will mean nada to the voters.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 2:53 pm ET)
           
        Jeter, I would agree with you if the narrative never gets produced, like it did with Kerry in '04.  But I guess we'll just have to see...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
             

          Good point Dbeden.

          I do think in Kerry's case some of the grief he took came about because of the reputation he had [at least here in Massachusetts] of being a kind of gigolo. His first wife was wealthy, then he dated a lot of wealthy women before marrying Teresa Heinz.

          I would guess that the longevity of the McCain marriage will shield him from being viewed in a similar fashion.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:22 pm ET)
               

            Hi Jeter,

            But should the length of McCain's marriage overshadow the fact that he and Cindy got married three weeks after McCain's first marriage ended?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 09, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
                 

              But should the length of McCain's marriage overshadow the fact that he and Cindy got married three weeks after McCain's first marriage ended?

              Anf that he and Cindy were carryig on a long-term affair while he was still married to his first wife?  That ought to go over well with the Family Values voters.....

              Report Abuse
              • Author by dazedandconfused26 (April 09, 2008 4:59 pm ET)
                   

                You should know the family values crowd only gets their panties in a wad if it's a liberal who's sleeping around, they ignore the rest like it doesn't exist.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
                 
              I guess that will be up to the media. It wouldn't surprise me if it came up at some point.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
                   

                Hi Jeter,

                Any guesses as to why it hasn't so far?  I am not suggesting bias here, but you would think that with a scandal-happy media this would be red meat, but for some reason, its been a total non-story.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
                     

                  Fried,

                  My guess, & it's only a guess about why it's been pretty much a non-story is that it's not a recent enough situation. Had McCain divorced his first wife & married Cindy say within the past 5-10 years it might titillate the media more.

                  I'm sure as the general election approaches there will be an article or two that will mention it. Do I think it will be highlighted? No. It's too old of a story.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
                       

                    Interesting take, Jeter.  I guess Kerry should have run for President in 2023.  That way, their marriages would be the same age.  Its just funny to me that many of the same people who hate Bill Clinton for his infidelities will be voting McCain in 2008.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (April 09, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
                         
                      Dan Abrahams has a great segment each night called "Teflon John". I guess his take is possible that the media won't allow anything to stick to him. Maybe.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
                         

                      Bill's most infamous infidelity took place while he was Prez, so I'd guess that's why it gets mega-attention.

                      But I know what you're saying, if folks vilify Bill Clinton for being a cad, then McCain deserves the same treatment.

                      Again, had his [McCain] behavior been more recent, I think we'd hear about it from the media. And folks might be more critical. Just my opinion.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
                           
                        Fair points, Jeter.  It just makes me snicker knowing that the villifiers of Clinton tend to gravitate towards Gingrich and McCain politically despite their commonalities
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 4:06 pm ET)
                             

                          It just makes me snicker knowing that the villifiers of Clinton tend to gravitate towards Gingrich and McCain politically despite their commonalities in this realm.

                          I agree Fried. If they wanted family values the Conservatives should have gone with Romney, IMO. Of course he was flipping & flopping all over the place...and he was a Mormon, which also bugged them.

                          I think it's fair to say a great many politicians are cads, they don't practice what they preach.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 4:09 pm ET)
                               
                            Tell that to my mom...she still thinks Bush is a "good man with Godly intentions."  But yes, Romney was actually fairly liberal 6-8 years ago, but he tried to run as a Republican, and that ain't gonna fly.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by jeter2 (April 09, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
                                 

                              Yeah my Mom calls Bush "Bushie" & thinks he seems like a "nice guy". She loved/loves Bill Clinton.

                              But she likes all the candidates this year too. Especially Obama. Seems she saw him on The View & decided she'd vote for him.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
                                   
                                My aunt's voting for Obama because Oprah told her to...just goes to show you the crazy reasons people vote for people.
                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
                           
                        Fair points, Jeter.  It just makes me snicker knowing that the villifiers of Clinton tend to gravitate towards Gingrich and McCain politically despite their commonalities in
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by tex (April 09, 2008 5:15 pm ET)
                           

                        JETER:

                        WHEN IT HAPPENED doesn't matter when a rightwinger is criticizing/attempting to smear a Democrat. How old was the Whitewater deal?

                        With Bill Clinton, it was Flowers and Jones and those bogus charges from Broadrick. Each was given tremendous press, speculation, and critical coverage. Each was SUPPOSED to end Clinton's political career.

                        See, when it comes to Democrats, it's all about "character", so any rumor of allegedly bad PERSONAL behavior is perfectly fair game.

                        With the GOP, personal lives are "respected" by a Media that bends over backwards to sing praises instead. "Presidential stature" and "maverick", instead of "cheater" and "liar" ... even though ample examples of similar behavior are present.  

                        Now we have McCain, who has been/is a less than ideal husband (i.e. he -- GASP! -- cheats, and gold-digs). He flip-flops and panders and lies. Will the scrutiny be on a par with that given Bill Clinton? It will NOT. Because it is a RIGHTWING Media, and it is invested in bringing down Democrats while propping up Republicans.

                        The BIAS could not be more clear, the double standard more blatant.

                        That's just the way it is in 2008, in America, with our corporate Media. 

                        Report Abuse
            • Author by Science101 (April 10, 2008 8:35 am ET)
                 

              I dont get what the point of your rant is all about.  Are you implying that marital problems in their personal lives somehow make them not good enough to hold presidential office?  If thats the case, then anyone who's had a divorce or affair should not be allowed to hold any public office, ranging from mayor to senate/congress, to president.  If so, Bill should not be allowed to step foot into the white house again either.

              What happened so many years ago in his personal life hold should no more bearing than Obama admitting to cocaine use that many years ago. 

              Report Abuse
    • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 09, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
         

      ... still you have to wonder just what kind of sleazy deals the Clintons had to make to "earn" their bribe money.

      (I just hope that people ignore the "generous" charitable donations made by Obama.)   

      Go Obama!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 2:57 pm ET)
           

        NAC,

        Instead of spoofing Obama, why don't you tell us the basic political tenets you believe in and how McCain reflects those.  In another thread you wrote about McCain being proud to be an American, but why does he consistently vote against veteran's benefits?

        http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/page/article/id/9559

        Report Abuse
        • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 09, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
             

          friedbergboy1422

          I'd love to answer that question - but first tell me why you think that I would be impressed by that hack web site you linked to just because they pinned the word "veterans" to the title?

           

          Oh, and Go OBAMA!!!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by deeznuts (April 09, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
               

            Did you just insult the troops? 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (April 09, 2008 3:54 pm ET)
                 

              NAC said:

              "... still you have to wonder just what kind of sleazy deals the Clintons had to make to "earn" their bribe money."

              Good one.  On the opposite side of that coin:  you have to wonder what kind of sleazy deals the McCains had to 'earn' their money.  Did Mrs. McCain steal drugs from the AVMT in order to sell them on the black market? Did they get some kickbacks from Charles Keating of Savings & Loan infamy?  Maybe he's invested in some defense contractors, which would explain his eagerness to extend the war in Iraq...

              Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (April 09, 2008 5:29 pm ET)
                 

              DEEZNUTS:

              OF COURSE he insulted the troops. Rightwingers don't care a THING about the troops, other than their usefulness in making the armchair Rightwingers feel MACHO. Oh yeah, and to use as a political calculation to retain power (Bush: a WARTIME President!)

              Heck, I guess troops are useful to secure other nation's natural resources for the use of our corporations, too.

              But, treat them like HUMAN BEINGS, with REAL respect reflected in actions, rather than rah-rah lip service? No way. Republicans have a long history of shorting veterans, not supporting troops in the field, not providing proper civilian leadership, and capitalizing on imperialistic military actions.

              To be clear, I don't think McCain or any other Republican actually HATES the troops. They'd have to have emotional investment to rise to the level of hatred. Instead, the view our troops the way they would view a field full of illegal migrant farm workers. Useful to bring in profitable produce, but less than human, and beneath any kind of consideration for fair material reward for their labors. They are to be USED.

              They're also useful to hide behind, when mommy's skirts aren't around. How many speeches has Dubya delivered in front of troops, as opposed to civilians? Feel safe, feel tough, USE the troops.

              They DIE due to your POLICY which was a MISTAKE? Oh, well. They VOLUNTEERED. The way the rightwing USE the troops is shameful. This goes double for all the GOP chickenhawks. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by albertsenj (April 11, 2008 10:28 pm ET)
                   
                Not only do troops make a great backdrop for a Presidential photo-op, they make an outstanding audience! There aren't going to be any murmurs of discontent, or rumblings of disagreement out of THAT crowd!
                Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
               

            NAC,

            Check the links from the website about McCains's voting record.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
               

            NAC,

            Most of the links are to the Senate's website which details McCain's pattern of voting against benefits for vets.

            Dben,

            He did just insult the troops, but that is standard practice and smiled upon if the troops disagree with conservatives.  Maybe he should change his moniker to JustAnotherConservative.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by deeznuts (April 09, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
                 
              Meh. They're just "phony soldiers" anyway, right?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 09, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
                 

              by that "logic", anytime any of "you people" criticize McCain YOU are insulting the troops.

               

              How very shameful.

               

              go Obama!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
                   

                NAC,

                Check out the links to the Senate.gov pages and tell me what you think.  I think you would agree that Senate.gov is a legitimate website which reports on the voting of the candidates, wouldn't you?

                Curious as to your thoughts.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 09, 2008 3:40 pm ET)
                     

                  friedbergboy1422:

                  Are you seriouisly suggesting that someone who served his nation with as much distinction as McCain "hates" the troops? 

                  Is this really the brilliant strategy you have?  Is this really all you got!

                  I think that most people would find that assertion to be pretty bogus unless you had, oh I don't know, maybe video of his preacher screaming and cussing like a wild-eyed crazyass, "God Damn AmeriKKKa" or video of his priveledged wife talking about how much she hates this nation and was never proud of it.

                  Go Obama!

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
                       
                    He didn't say McCain hates the troops, just that he consistently votes against veterans benefits.  You really need to sharpen your argument skills if you plan on holding a frank and open discussion.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
                       

                    NAC,

                    I am not suggesting McCain hates the troops at all.  I am merely presenting to you evidence for your consideration of votes by the Arizona Senator that go against government benefits.  I am curious as to your opinion of this voting pattern.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (April 09, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
                         
                      Give it up guys he won't answer the question. The fact of the matter is that he can't answer the question about veterans benefits because the cold hard truth stares him in the face. That of course coincides with the fact that he is likely a chickenhawk who would never have the courage to put on the uniform for this great nation. He would rather have others do it and ridicule those who speak out against war when there is no way he could hold his bladder if placed under direct fire. Most of those guys are all alike anyway. He is just here to stir the pot. Seems to me that if he refuses to engage in any type of rationale discussion he is nothing more than a nuisance. It's probably best to ignore him. Cowards hate that.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 4:06 pm ET)
                           
                        tell you the truth, I only respond to him because it's amusing
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by achrispage6992 (April 09, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
                             
                          Well, I will admit that I have tried to engage him in a rationale way which probably was useless. I do think he gets some kind of perveted satisfaction out of thinking he makes others mad. It makes him feel superior. He should be denied that and thereby forced to participate on terms other than his. I don't guress it's really that important though, jeez, it's just a blog where we all come to waste time and discuss things we likely don't get to most any other time. Should we then use him as the court jester?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 4:33 pm ET)
                               
                            He used to actually make good points before he devolved into whatever it is he is now...But yeah, I would say he's our regular court jester...reminds me of Bugs Bunny, which is how I'm going to picture him from now on.
                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (April 09, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
                       

                    Friedberg never claimed that McCain 'hates' the troops, you are putting words in his mouth.  He only claimed that McCain doesn't believe they should get the benefits which they deserve, which is true.

                    As a McCain supporter, I have to go with MMFA on this one.

                    Still, go McCain!!

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 3:49 pm ET)
                         

                      I'm rooting for Huckabee...apparently he's going to make some big announcement (third party candidacy?) at noon on April 15th

                      So, Go Huckabee! 

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 3:49 pm ET)
                       

                    NAC,

                    Please show me where I said McCain hates the troops.  Since I have answered all of your queries to this point, please answer mine.  You said that you would be happy to after I explained the website.  Thank you.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by dbeden4153 (April 09, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
                   
                Uhm...how do I put this so you would understand...No.  That is a false analogy (maybe analogy is too big a word) How about "you no speak good truth"
                Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (April 09, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
         

      Seeing how the Clintons made a hundred mil from Bill's botched tenure at President makes me all the more cynical regarding Hillary's "moment".

      "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said.

      Who knew she was really talking about Clinton Inc. losing millions in speaking engagements and book deals. ;-)  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 09, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
           

        botched tenure ? You mean the two terms of relative peace and economic growth  he left with an approval rating of about double what your man Bush has got right now?

        Thanks for the laugh!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Lynn (April 09, 2008 7:05 pm ET)
             

          Col,

           I believe AA assesses Clinton's tenure on one thing, he's a womanizer which negates everything else. Now, I was about ready to kick Bill's butt a couple of months ago, but he was a good president. I must admit however that I prefer my fond memories of his presidency to the reality of third Clinton presidency. He did some good things but there was always a funny smell that surrounded the Clintons. I've been back and forth on this issue, but if Hilary wins the nomination I'll put a close pin my nose, cry and vote for her, and I'll have to leave the pin in place for 4 years I guess.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 09, 2008 11:50 pm ET)
               

            Hi Lynn. I know, I'm hoping I don't have to vote for Hillary. I'm not registered with any party, so it might be easier for me to vote against the GOP rather than for the Dem, but I'm hoping it's a moot point.

            And you may be right about the source of AA's mania regarding the Clenis.There was probably a popular football player in high school who he hated as well. ;0)

            Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 09, 2008 5:16 pm ET)
           

        AA,

        Maybe you can answer what NAC refuses to.  You seem to be a McCain guy, how do you reconcile "support for the troops" with McCain's voting record on veteran's benefits:

        http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/page/article/id/9559

        Also, I only hope the next President "botches" things as well as Clinton did. 

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Appleboy (April 09, 2008 6:56 pm ET)
           
        Exactly what did he botch? And please keep your answer to things he supposedly botched on planet Earth. In reality he made some mistakes just like all presidents do, but overall he did a pretty damn good job, at least based on how things  were in the 90's. You know, a good ecomony, peace, respect from our allies, etc.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Treefiddy (April 09, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
         

      Clinton's campaign is going down in flames.  All you liberal bloggers can keep digging holes trying to sell her Communist ideas.  She wants to tax everyone else and live under a different set of standards.  That's what Communist politicians do.  I don't want this to be the "United Socialist America" in my lifetime.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (April 10, 2008 12:03 pm ET)
           
        Are you Frank Burns from the old 70's t.v. show MASH?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 10, 2008 12:05 pm ET)
           
        Good for you,d-ul-o-monchichi. You were probably told that you'd never be able to operate a keyboard. Watch out for those communists, they're everywhere! 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (April 10, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
             
          His name is intriguing. Perhaps he is Tom Delay (dee o lay the o thrown in to confuse us.)

          or perhaps the clue is in the last syllables (I'm a reading therapist)

          are they pronounced 'ow' as in how now brown cow,

          or 'o-e' as in show blow throw low?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (April 09, 2008 11:59 pm ET)
         
      Hmm, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert and Matt Lauer dissecting the Clintons tax return with a sharp lens. Of course when you are a multi millionare journalist you don't want to discuss THAT, you'd rather not.

      Guess how much these three make a year?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lwyslv631 (April 10, 2008 11:25 am ET)
         

      Clintons have always been the scapegoats for whatever they do or don't do.  Here we have a lady senator who is being treated contempously by both the press and media. We had the best 8 years during Clintons time but the clintons are dogged by either the lewinsky or money issues etc...,

      That shows how 'media' makes their 'money' by gossips about popular personalities and news than discussing about main issues.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.