Matthews' panel problem: Conservatives saturated MSNBC's coverage of presidential address

Written by Josh Kalven

Published

In post-speech coverage of President Bush's June 28 address, MSNBC presented a panel and guest roster dominated by Republican officials, commentators and activists. Between 8:30 and 10 p.m. ET, six of the 10 guests who appeared on the special edition of MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews expressed support for Bush's speech. Only two guests criticized the president's address. Of the remaining two -- both journalists -- Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham lauded Bush's speech with florid language, while noting that skeptics might not have been persuaded.

During the same 90 minutes, Fox News also hosted predominately Republican and conservative guests than Democrats and critics of the president, though not by the same margin as MSNBC. By contrast, CNN's post-speech coverage featured a largely balanced roster of guests.


Program Republicans or guests supportive of Bush speech Democrats or guests critical of Bush speech Guests who provided no clear indication of their political preference MSNBC Hardball (Presidential Address Special Edition)

  • Tony Perkins, Family Research Council president
  • Bobbie Patray, Tennessee Eagle Forum president
  • Jerry Sutton, Southern Baptist minister
  • MSNBC host Tucker Carlson
  • Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
  • MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell
  • Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham

Fox News Post-speech coverage

  • Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes
  • Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke
  • Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
  • Gen. Wesley Clark
  • NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson

Hannity & Colmes

  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
  • Former House speaker Newt Gingrich
  • Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
  • Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)


CNN Post-speech coverage

  • Former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs Victoria Clarke
  • CNN host Paul Begala
  • Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE)
  • Former presidential adviser David Gergen
  • CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash
  • CNN correspondent Jennifer Eccleston

Larry King Live

  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
  • Sen. John Warner (R-VA)
  • Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)
  • Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
  • Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
  • CNN correspondent Jennifer Eccleston
  • Jay Carney, Time magazine deputy Washington bureau chief
  • Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent

Skewed panels are nothing new at MSNBC. Matthews hosted similarly skewed panels at the 2004 presidential debates, the January 20 presidential inauguration and President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address. Further, Media Matters for America has documented numerous examples of skewed guest rosters on regular editions of Hardball.

Following is a selection of the comments made by guests listed in the above table:

Republicans or guests supportive of Bush's address

  • TONY PERKINS: I think what did he tonight was he took us back to why we're there. He went back. He reminded us of what we're up against. And you know, we live in the age of instant -- you know, results. This is not instant. We've been there a while. We're going to be there a while longer. And it's good to remind the American people why we're there, what we're up against, and what happens if we don't succeed. ... Well, sometimes there are those that are -- that are more, I guess, forthright in what they see as reality. And some are more optimistic in what they hope will be reality.
  • JERRY SUTTON: I'd say when you're the leader, you don't have the option of vacillating. That's a pleasure that the leader doesn't have. And the best thing that he can do, that our president can do, is say, you know, “We're here for the long haul.” Everybody is concerned that we not have another Vietnam. The issue is, if we're not going to have another Vietnam, what is the game plan? Americans don't mind going to war. They mind going to war with no hope of victory. ... I'm pro-president. I'm for the war. I want to see us win the war.
  • TUCKER CARLSON: This is a noble cause in an abstract way. We're not there for oil. We're not there to colonize the country. We're not even there to build military bases. We're there, as he said, to create a stable, democratic Iraq and make the world safer. I don't think there's any argument with that. Whether it's going to work is another question.
  • FRED BARNES: He didn't sugarcoat what's going on there. But he did say essentially that we are winning, and that's what I think he needed to do. Then at the end, of course, that really was soaring about Afghanistan and Iraq and they will be turning points as freedom unfolds in the world.
  • MORTON M. KONDRACKE: I honestly think this is one of the very best speeches that George Bush has delivered. I mean, I think it -- it was rich in strategic content. [...] Now, it seems to me that if people heard it tonight, that they will have more confidence in what we're doing than they had before they tuned in.
  • NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think, first of all, interestingly, there's a lot of parallel between Abraham Lincoln persevering and President Bush's emphasis tonight about perseverance. The key question, it seemed to me, was that this is a very rational, factually based speech. [...] He gave the American people, I think, a sense of purpose, a sense of order. He mentioned that over 140,000 Iraqis are now serving in various security forces, including the police and the army. And I think people can sense from this speech a calm, steady, purposefulness that's very, very important.
  • VICTORIA CLARKE: I think he was very direct and very honest with the American people about how tough this would be. And he tried to spell out what people haven't been hearing a lot of, which is some of the progress. [...] Because we'll stay as long as we have to, but we don't want to stay one day longer than necessary. I think that was a very, very important message that was being sent.

Democrats or guests critical of Bush's address

  • REZA ASLAN: I think it's a very, very long road until we can say anything like winning in Iraq. [...] I think the way that we're fighting the war, the language, the propaganda that we're using, the mistakes we've made at Abu Ghraib, the mistakes that we've made in not understanding what does inflame the passions of Muslims throughout the world, that is what is hurting the war on terrorism.
  • GEN. WESLEY CLARK: There were some questions that he didn't resolve. For example, he didn't really come to grips with the dichotomy between what Vice President [Dick] Cheney said, that the insurgency is in its last throes, and what [Defense] Secretary [Donald R.] Rumsfeld warned, that this could last five to 12 more years. He admitted progress is uneven. He didn't really explain why car bombings have gone up despite our effective operations or why the insurgents are coming in increasing numbers or why the insurgency still is the same strength. These are all elements that create doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the American public.
  • DAVID GERGEN: Well, listen, I was troubled and at times offended by irregularity of coming back to 9-11. You know, because we -- as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam and you know, there's been this myth for a long time, that's just untrue, that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9-11. Having said that, as a -- as my political judgment, even though you and I may not like it, it's my political judgment that, that trump card has worked well for the president in the past. It's likely to work reasonably well here. Will this get 60 percent approval for the war? No, not at all. Will it get 60 percent approval for the president? No.

Guests who did not clearly praise or criticize Bush's address

  • JON MEACHAM: I think he certainly spoke nobly and well. He linked this struggle to our noblest moments through our history, from the Revolution forward. It was striking to me that the one moment of applause at that very well disciplined military crowd was that we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. And he evoked the virtues and values of courage and tenacity and sacrifice. What he has still, I think, not done for people who are uncertain about the beginnings of this war, the reason we went in the first place, is making the link between September 11 and what's unfolding in Iraq right now.

    This was -- as Richard Haass, the former director of planning at the State Department, called it -- a war of choice. And it is -- obviously, the president has made a generational bet that, by transforming Iraq, we will transform the ideologies that drove the terrorists. But that is a difficult argument to make, because it's almost like trying to prove a negative. That is, “We have not been hit, so therefore, we are winning over there.”
  • NORAH O'DONNELL: The president did not say that he would change things today. He did not provide a clear exit strategy or a timetable. What he may have achieved doing is providing an update to the American people. That's what the White House said they wanted to do today: restate the strategy, reinvigorate public support. [...] The goal of the president today was to show a clear path to victory, and so the American people will judge: Did he lay out a game plan today? Did he lay out a strategy to do that? What new did he say tonight, in order to say, “Was this was worth it?” He says it's worth it. We're spending $1 billion a day. We have 1,700 troops dead. What happens in the next month? The president -- this is not the last speech he'll have to give on this. It will have to be a regular update. Because, as was said, these Iraqi troops are not ready and will not be for some time.
  • MARA LIASSON: I don't think this was kind of a do-or-die moment for him. I think this was just time for him to come out at a time when there are doubts of the American people, though we see polls going in both directions, to reiterate what the reasons are, why he sees it necessary to stay, why we're there, how it affects the security of the United States, and also to rebut some of the critics, especially some people -- not necessarily critics, but people who are calling for some kind of a timetable or benchmarks about how long we're going to stay there. [...] But the president said today we're going to stay in Iraq as long as we're needed and not a day longer, but he's not going to set any timetable for getting out.
  • JAY CARNEY: And the problem that the president faces, really, is that he's trying to make a public relations pitch, showing that he understands the concerns the Americans have, but he cannot affect with this speech what's happening on the ground, and that's what most Americans have been watching on television and reading in the newspapers. And unless the situation improves on the ground, I don't think his plight, politically, will improve.