MSNBC's Gregory's claim that "everybody is talking about" Hitchens' anti-Clinton comments is false -- unless "everybody" is MSNBC
SUMMARY: MSNBC's David Gregory claimed that "everybody is talking about" Christopher Hitchens' recent comments on why, in Gregory's words, Hitchens "believes picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state would be a, quote, 'ludicrous embarrassment' for President Obama." In fact, not "everybody" is talking about Hitchens, who has smeared Clinton before -- not CNN, not Fox News, at least not during prime time, not major newspapers, and not even NBC's Nightly News.
During the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, host David Gregory introduced a discussion with Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens by saying, "Christopher Hitchens on why he believes picking [Sen.] Hillary Clinton for secretary of state would be a, quote, 'ludicrous embarrassment' for President [Barack] Obama. He made those comments on Hardball, here on MSNBC, last night. It's something everybody is talking about today." But Gregory cited no evidence that anyone outside of MSNBC was "talking about" Hitchens' November 17 comments. A Media Matters for America search of the Nexis and Factiva databases for November 17 and November 18 turned up no mention of Hitchens on NBC's flagship news program, Nightly News with Brian Williams, the other network evening news programs, and CNN at any point on either day or on Fox News in prime time (Fox News transcripts are available in Nexis only for prime time). And searches of the Nexis and Factiva databases turned up no mention of Hitchens on either November 17 or 18 in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, or the Associated Press. By contrast, MSNBC aired Hitchens' November 17 comments multiple times on November 18.
It is unclear why MSNBC treated Hitchens' attacks on Clinton as newsworthy, given his history of frequent and harsh criticism of Clinton. Indeed, on the November 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough said that it was "[n]ot a great surprise" that Hitchens "savaged Hillary." Nevertheless, Morning Joe alone aired Hitchens' comments four separate times that day.
From the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with David Gregory:
GREGORY: But coming next, Christopher Hitchens on why he believes picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state would be a, quote, "ludicrous embarrassment" for President Obama. He made those comments on Hardball, here on MSNBC, last night. It's something everybody is talking about today. He'll talk about it some more on 1600, right after the break.
From the Nov. 18 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Last night, Christopher Hitchens --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, that was harsh.
WILLIE GEIST (co-host): Yeah --
SCARBOROUGH: -- absolutely savaged Hillary. Not a great surprise, but what he said may resonate with some of her critics.
GEIST: Yeah, Christopher Hitchens not jumping on the Hillary --
BRZEZINSKI: Not really.
GEIST: -- for secretary of state bandwagon. Here's Hitchens on Hardball.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.
This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
BRZEZINSKI: Wow. A "ludicrous" --
GEIST: A "ludicrous embarrassment."
MIKE BARNICLE (commentator): Did we edit the tape before he got to the plus side?
GEIST: No, there wasn't.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: I understand also we've got the Hillary Clinton issue in the news, and Christopher Hitchens last night weighed in on it and basically spoke for a lot of Hillary detractors.
GEIST: Yeah, I think he did. A lot of people coming out saying she'd be a great choice. Christopher Hitchens -- not one of those people. Here's Hitchens on Hardball last night.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.
This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
GEIST: Not a ringing endorsement.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, harsh, harsh, harsh, harsh, harsh.
BARNICLE: Good lord.
GEIST: [CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times writer] John Harwood, do we overstate the Bill Clinton problem? We heard this argument when she was up to be vice president, that too much Bill Clinton baggage -- he had too many entangling alliances. How big a problem is he, really?
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Hey, let's take a look right now -- Mika, we've been talking about Hillary Clinton this morning. Let's take a look at Christopher Hitchens. Last night, he was on Hardball --
BRZEZINSKI: It's harsh.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and he talked about all of the concerns that, bluntly, the Obama people may have. The concerns that a lot of Clinton detractors may be bringing up that maybe is the reason why they're having this very public vetting process. But I want you to listen to Christopher Hitchens because what he said last night, while I disagree with much of it, what he said last night may explain why the Obama campaign is dragging their feet right now and letting this play out in a very public way. Take a look.
BRZEZINSKI: He doesn't mince words.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.
This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
BRZEZINSKI: Wow.
SCARBOROUGH: With us now, right now, let's bring in MSNBC News political director and he's editor, of course, of MSNBC.com's FirstRead, Chuck Todd. Chuck.
TODD: Yeah, great. Bring me up -- bring me in right after that Hitchens rant.
SCARBOROUGH: Christopher Hitchens -- do you agree with him 100 percent or 98 percent?
TODD: It is clear that there are some people who are ardent Obama supporters, who are just not happy about this idea of bringing in the Clintons in the administration. And I think it is interesting in this respect: The Obama base is getting tested today. The Lieberman punishment is nothing. Let's be realistic -- nothing. And now, they're bringing in the Clintons. You know, I -- what if Obama comes out and says, you know what? I'm going to send more troops to Iraq. The surge is working, and let's -- you know. You do wonder how much can -- will his base take. You know, I'm not saying that Christopher Hitchens is part of the base, as far as Obama is concerned, but how much -- there might be some Obama supporters like him who may get very upset about [unintelligible].
[...]
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.
This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh.
GEIST: So is he against --
BRZEZINSKI: I'm trying to think.
GEIST: Trying to read between the lines.
BARNICLE: No, we edited the positive part out of it, you know.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, so Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Christopher Hitchens would say it would be a "ludicrous" what? What was that? That was rough.
BARNICLE and GEIST: A "ludicrous embarrassment."
BARNICLE: Yes.
BRZEZINSKI: A "ludicrous embarrassment." But here is the deal. There are some issues that I guess we need to consider as they vet Bill Clinton, and we look at all the possibilities and opportunities a Clinton position would offer.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: But if you look back at the campaign, there were a lot of things they [Clinton and Obama] did not agree upon and there were some things said.
EAMON JAVERS (Politico staff writer): Right.
BREWER: So let's take a listen to this. Here's Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens who was on Hardball talking about it.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia. This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
BREWER: On the heels of what he just said, the idea of secretary of state for Hillary Clinton, given all of that history that Christopher Hitchens -- you know, I mean, there's nothing he said that wasn't factual -- or you think, why that post?
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: I take your point that you are not a fan of the incoming president, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Let me play for you a clip from Christopher Hitchens on Hardball, who is not a fan of Hillary Clinton when it comes to foreign policy, and ask you on the other side.
LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER (former secretary of state under George H.W. Bush): OK, all right.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia. This is the woman who, with her husband, have so many connections -- fundraising connections overseas -- Indonesia, China. Just look up the Senate report on their fundraising activities, the people they have pardoned, the amazing brothers of hers who nearly got the -- was it the nut monopoly in Kazakhstan or something farcical like that. Just look it up. It's a ludicrous embarrassment.
MITCHELL: Well, you -- do you disagree with that?
EAGLEBURGER: Yeah, look, first of all, I have never heard Hitchens do anything right, so I'm worried about that comment of his. I'm not trying to defend her.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the November 18 edition of MSNBC Live:
SHUSTER: Julie [Menin, Women's Campaign Forum], I want to get your reaction in particular to something that Christopher Hitchens said on Hardball last Friday about Hillary Clinton. Watch.
HITCHENS [video clip]: This is the woman who played the race card on Barack Obama. This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in -- whichever change it was -- you were voting against. This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.
SHUSTER: He goes on to say that Hillary Clinton's appointment would be a "ludicrous embarrassment." Your reaction?
MENIN: Yeah. I just don't agree with that. I think that that's unfortunately partisan bickering that we really need to move beyond from. She has eight years in the Senate. She has a record of bipartisan support, reaching across the aisle, working with Senators Lindsey Graham, Senators Bill Frist. She's a very hard-working senator. She has years of foreign policy experience, and she can really hit the ground running, and that's exactly what we need in this very tough time that we're in.
This again shows the myopia of the mainstream media. Gregory is now reporting on the skuttlebut he heard around the water cooler.
What in the WORLD was going on with MSNBC today?
It was nothing but a non-stop, Hillary hate-fest. Really unbelievable. They even brought Joe S. out in the daylight to moan about her.
Smooth move, MSNBC. You've become unwatchable again. Bob Somerby's right-- there's some kind of brain disease over there. What a bunch of infantile jerks.
ps. Hitchins is correct.
Can't agree AA, Obama is wise to put her at State. She is more than capable, very smart, extremely knowledgeable, and would make a good SofS, in my opinion.
But MMFA should just let those who don't think so have their say, instead of getting so damn defensive anytime anyone criticizes a Clinton.
Tommy,
You may have a point if you overlook the fact that she's corrupt, her husband is corrupt and they have lined their pockets with gold from foreigners over the years. If she gets the job it won't be because she's knowledgeable, smart, or capable. She lost a shoe-in election to a rookie. The only reason she would get it is some sort of political payoff. Obama's inexperience and lack of sound judgement is showing... of course all the Clinton cronies he's surrounded himself with, must be pushing for it. It will be a horrible mistake to let Hill and Bill hang around his administration. Might as well call her Hillary Cassius.
I disagree. Say what you will about her, and I have said plenty, she is smart and has done her homework on foreign affairs. She would far less "disruptive" to Obama in his Cabinet than in the Senate, he knows that. He isn't paying her back for anything, why would he?
And how anyone could criticize Obama's inexperience and lack of sound judgement after 8 years of Bush is beyond me, we have tried the Bush Doctrine and look where that has us, at home and abroad.
You may have a point if you overlook the fact that she's corrupt, her husband is corrupt and they have lined their pockets with gold from foreigners over the years.
That's complete insanity. Women-hating nuttiness. You're a liar.
Anotheramerican making another completly bogus statement for which he has no facts to back it up.
Strictly my opinion.
If you think the Clinton's are guiltless, I've got a bridge to sell you. You would think by now that the facts are known. Just off the top of my head I can think of it is well known how Bill has collected enormous sums for his library and for his speaking engagements by those outside the country. And you must be forgetting his relationships with the Raidy family and Red China, fundraising in the White House, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, etc. . Then of course there are the Hillary fundraising scandals, her connection to the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, cattle futures, etc.
Nice try peebs.
I can think of it is well known how Bill has collected enormous sums for his library and for his speaking engagements by those outside the country.
Nothing wrong with that-- more power to him.
I love it. When republicans make money or are rich, that's proof that America's a great country. When Dems prosper, it means there's evil in the world.
If you think the Clinton's are guiltless
An independent prosecutor, after spending 10's of millions of dollars, came to that exact conclusion. Do you have any new information to share?
You may have a point if you overlook the fact...(AA)
Can you support those facts (Others)
Strictly my opinion (AA)
Barney, do you see the problem here?
And Bush has already raised some $200 MILLION for his presidential LIE-brary. But the media aren't coaching Americans to be critical of that. Bush also hand picked an historian with questionable credentials who has been editing and destroying portions of the Nixon White House tapes. But the media haven't made a big deal about that either. The media have had a hate fest on the Clintons for years, actually since Hillary tried to implement universal national healthcare and just after Bill raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans (as he was right to do) in 1993.
"In fact, media outlets have previously reported that Clinton "has gained a lot of respect among military leadership" and has "built relationships" with military leaders such as Gen. David H. Petraeus and Adm. William J. Fallon. Clinton also received the endorsement of numerous retired generals and admirals during her 2008 presidential campaign."--MMFA
I don't think that's "getting so damn defensive". I think it is called correcting misinformation.
I think it's perfectly all right to get defensive if what one defends is the right of the people to expect correct factual information from the press.
Along the same lines, if a pundit wants to make a case that Clinton is a poor choice for Secretary of State, one would think that the pundit would either be able to do so using correct facts, or alternatively, the pundit's reasons for thinking this way aren't very good reasons.
"Hitchins is correct."
That, sir, is simply your opinion. ;)
he's an obvious neurasthenic. A disgrace. A slob-- and not even a cool one. Cool would be OK.
I sincerely hope the above ad hominem is directed at Hitchens rather than anotheramerican.
Hitch!
This is a well deserved swipe at Gregory, of course not "everybody", silly. I mean, I can ask at least three people I know for certain that are not talking about this.
(eye roll)
Wasn't MSNBC the network that some trolls here have said in the past they would be shocked if MMFA ever criticized it?
While I don't know that this classifies as "conservative misinformation" - and note I'm referring here to MSNBC's actions, not Hitchens' opinion - it does seem clear that it's a type of journalistic malfeasance, with the network trying to pump the importance of a story simply because it was its own story.
MMFA has always scrutinized MSNBC. There's even a specific Matthews-watch blog.
That's quite a distinguished bunch of partisan media and political hacks we have transcribed above, giving us their weighty opinions on President Obama's picks to head the various Departments and Agencies under his administration.
I like razor-sharp insightful critiques of the administrators of our Federal Government, especially when they haven't even began the job... especially when they haven't even been nominated!
What does the bunch transcribed above think of Condoleeza Rice I wonder?
A big Thumbs Up I guess... probably the same for Colin Powell: he was a real spectacle as Secretary of State, versus the submarine low profile of Secretary Rice.
I wonder what this distinguished panel, so busy vetting Mr. Obama's choices, what do they think of Alberto Gonzales?
More to the point, what did they think back then, when he was being nominated for AG of the U.S.: was that a "ludicrous embarrassment" for George W. Bush?
What did they have to say about Donald Rumsfeld?
Did this mika chick say "Wow" to the idea of Donald Rumsfeld heading a Department of our Federal Government?
These idiot critiques of the next administration of our Federal Government, before it has even taken place (before it has even been officially named!), and these idiots who are transcribed above, they're all a day late and a dollar short, and strangely conspicuous for failing to compare any prospective Obama Department heads with the Bush ones whose place they are thankfully taking.
These idiots fail to give us their weighty opinions on Bush Department heads, such as Condleeza Rice... what do they think of her? What did they think of when she was nominated to be Secretary of State?
Did they think it was a ludicrous embarrassment?
Did they say "Wow" (which is what dumbfounded idiots say, when they think they're supposed to say something, or else serve no purpose other than being the chick who sits next to joe in the morning.)
hitchens bought the bush line on the invasion of iraq hook line and sinker. and he bashed anyone who disagreed.
When I heard "ludicrous embarrassment", I thought that described Hitchens to a "T". What are HIS leadership credentials, his resume of being correct as an analyst? Who cares what his opinion might be?
I'm thirsty. Could you please pass that Kool-Aid?
Give me a break AA. Did Sean Hannity email you a powerpoint?