On the January 8 edition of National Public Radio's On the Media, discussing the media's coverage of the New Hampshire primary, co-host Brooke Gladstone stated: "[T]here was an interesting piece of analysis on Campaign Desk, which offers continual coverage of the coverage on the CJR [Columbia Journalism Review] website, and it suggests that the vote for [Hillary] Clinton in New Hampshire was in some way a vote against MSNBC's Chris Matthews, as the sort of breathing, saliva-spewing symbol of a general media dump on Hillary. When we talk about groupthink, is he the leader of the pack?" Guest Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, replied: “I think he's one of them. I mean, he's certainly the most voluble of the bunch.” Hayes later said of Matthews: “I think that he's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media, particularly the media's relationship with the Clintons.”

The post on CJR's Campaign Desk to which Gladstone was apparently referring was authored by CJR writer Liz Cox Barrett and titled, “The Anti-Chris Matthews Vote: And how it sparked some media soul-searching (though not from Matthews).” In the post, Barrett documented several quotes from Matthews and asked: “So was there, in fact, what amounts to an anti-Chris Matthews vote that emerged in New Hampshire? And if so, why might Hillary Clinton have been the beneficiary?” Barrett added, “Here are a couple of thoughts on those questions,” and linked to a Salon.com article by staff writer Rebecca Traister headlined “The Witch ain't dead and Chris Matthew is a ding-dong” and a blog post by Atlantic associate editor Matthew Yglesias that discussed Matthews.

Prior to the segment featuring Hayes and Gladstone, co-host Bob Garfield also discussed the media's coverage of Clinton: “Even the unsinkable Chris Matthews, MSNBC's towering monument to certainty, seemed a little shaken up, almost a new man. Here he was on Tuesday.” Garfield then aired an audio clip of Matthews' statement during MSNBC's coverage of the January 8 New Hampshire primary that “I give her [Hillary Clinton] a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.” Garfield then said, “Well, maybe not entirely new man. Here he was the next day.” Garfield then aired Matthews' statement the following day 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.”

At the end of Garfield's segment, which also included audio clips of CNN host Lou Dobbs, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams discussing the media's coverage of the New Hampshire primary, Garfield asserted: “And that is a course on how the media screws up. In fact, it's not just one course; it's a whole meal -- from soup to nuts.”

From the January 11 edition of National Public Radio's On the Media:

BOB GARFIELD (co-host): OK, last week we started the show with politics despite a pretty thin media angle because, come on, it was the Iowa caucuses. But this week, we're doing it again; only this time, I swear, with a much, much better media story. And by “better,” I mean a pitiful, pathetic, New Hampshire primary pundit implosion -- a historic, Dewey-defeats-Truman pie in the face, the creamy remnants of which TV stars including CNN's Lou Dobbs, CBS' Katie Couric, and NBC's Brian Williams are still scraping off their kissers.

[begin audio clip]

DOBBS: The savants, the pundits, all of the political experts need to do a little, a little seeking of forgiveness because everyone was so wrong in this, and breathtakingly so.

COURIC: We'll be hearing more from those ubiquitous pundits and polls in the weeks ahead. But Iowa and now New Hampshire should remind us all: In the end, the only voice that really matters belongs to the voters.

WILLIAMS: Give us a few weeks. We'll promptly forget the lessons of this debacle in polling predictions and primary politics. We will all live to screw up another day, though our performance in New Hampshire will be hard to beat.

[end audio clip]

GARFIELD: That was NBC's Brian Williams stating the painfully obvious: They will live to screw up another day because campaign journalism, and especially political punditry, is all about prognostication -- a savory soup of polling data, history, and supposed expertise, which is all well and good, except that the electorate doesn't necessarily eat the soup. The experts are still sorting out the polls. Is the sampling unrepresentative? Did the sample lie? Did the human factor -- actual living, breathing voters deciding on living, breathing candidates -- rudely ignore the inevitability of a Clinton defeat? Even the unsinkable Chris Matthews, MSNBC's towering monument to certainty, seemed a little shaken up, almost a new man. Here he was on Tuesday:

MATTHEWS [audio clip]: And I give her a lot of personal credit. I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.

GARFIELD: Well, maybe not entirely new man. Here he was the next day:

MATTHEWS [audio clip]: And I'll be brutal -- 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. ... That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation.”

GARFIELD: And that is a course on how the media screws up. In fact, it's not just one course; it's a whole meal -- from soup to nuts.

GLADSTONE: Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, is fresh off the campaign trail. He joins us now, sleep deprived and we hope with his guard down. Chris, welcome back to the show.

HAYES: Thanks for having me back, Brooke.

GLADSTONE: So there was an interesting piece of analysis on Campaign Desk, which offers continual coverage of the coverage on the CJR website, and it suggests that the vote for Clinton in New Hampshire was in some way a vote against MSNBC's Chris Matthews, as the sort of breathing, saliva-spewing symbol of a general media dump on Hillary. When we talk about groupthink, is he the leader of the pack?

HAYES: I think he's one of them. I mean, he's certainly the most voluble of the bunch. And I think also the amazing thing about Chris Matthews is that when he gets something in his sights, he just won't let it go. And so, sometimes, instead of interviewing, whatever idea he just came up with, he just sort of throws it out and says, “Isn't that true? Right? But isn't that true?” And then if they try to deviate from the line, he cuts them off and steers them back.

GLADSTONE: You know, it does seem that he's gotten a lot of the press in the wake of New Hampshire. Is it simply that because his narratives seem to be so immovable once set, that he's just, as you say, an example of the extreme campaign reporter?

HAYES: Yeah, I think that's exactly it. I mean, I think that he's ascended to the level of kind of icon of the frustration that people have with the media, particularly the media's relationship with the Clintons. I actually think that going into Tuesday, before the actual primary had happened, my thought was that the biggest story that I was seeing was this crazy degree of schadenfreude on the part of the national press corps directed towards the Clintons. I mean, it was almost like they were gathered on the shores as the Titanic was sinking and kind of sadistically waving at the people scrambling for life rafts. And it was so palpable. It kind of brought people back to the late 1990s and Ken Starr and Monica Lewinsky. And that's a real raw emotional place for your average Democratic primary voter. And I've talked to a lot of people who are not Hillary Clinton supporters at all and they felt this desire to kind of defend the Clintons and to kind of tell the media to buzz off.