So when it's convenient MMFA uses Matthews as backup?  How rich.  Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack, make up your mind.

I always knew Matthews opinion carried a lot of weight around here.  This is the proof.

The press is McCain's base then and now. Just because Chris- I have no bounderies in my stream of consciousness musings - Matthews let it slip, doesn't mean it's not true. 

They shouldn't use a source they have so thoroughly discredited in the past.  It's a poor arguing tactic.

No it's not. Context is important. Matthews isn't brainless...he just lets the contents of his brain leak out indiscriminately (too much air time)

As jj said, "stream of consciousness" is what Matthews does... Often he just says nonsense and that has included sexist remarks. Saying that McCain's "base" includes the press is the truth, as documented by Media Matters numerous times.

Why doesn't MMFA use someone else besides Matthews to shore up their assertion?  If your best example is someone you trash on a regular basis, then your case is incredibly weak.  Sorry.

McCain himself said the press was his base. Do you want to dispute him? And the examples of McCain's favorable press coverage is documented HERE everyday. Don't need Chris letting it slip to know.

Oh, well we all know that if it's documented here everyday, that settles it then.....because we always get the whole picture, both sides of the coin here, everyday.  Thanks for clearing that up.

You are exceedingly welcome. I guess verbatim transcripts and video are too accurate for you. Oh well.

Yeah, I can't wait for Matthews to run for the Senate as a Democrat. MMFA will surely hate him then.

I wonder about the Matthews bashing. He seems rather fair to me although he slants to the left most of the time (which I like better than someone slanting to the right). I really think someone in the heirarchy at MMFA just flat out doesn't like him.

I agree, Matthews is probably no better or worse than any other political junkie/pundit/opinionator/commentator out there.......he shoots from the hip and points his arrows and blows his kisses to nearly all of them, I suppose.

He isn't nearly the villian he is portrayed to be here. 

Tommy, I don't believe this site has ever labeled Matthews a "partisan hack."  I believe you've been reading the comments too long and you get the two confused.

What do you think the Matthews Monitor is for? 

To make sure we don't forget his birthday?  ;)

Tommy, show me where they say Matthews is a partisan hack...that's all I'm talking about.  You said they rely on him one minute and call him a partisan hack the next.  I'm saying they have never called him that.

Ok DB, not in so many words, MMFA never uses terms like that in their copy, we both know that......but it is the implication, and just look at the comments by many on a Matthews' thread.  You got my point, which is MMFA feels he is their political enemy, except when he says something they like, then it's a total 180.

Would you say MMFA thinks he is a fair and balanced commentator, or a partisan "hack"? 

There's no implication in their threads...their columns have called him sexist, but to be a partisan hack is to completely advocate for only one side.

And I understand what you were trying to say, but I think you're trying to make 2 and 2 equal 7.  Just because they use him as evidence does not mean that they have suddenly found him favorable or honest in his punditry.  They use quotes from O'Reilly to refute his own words all the time, but do you think they suddenly find him on the up and up?

They are using the "credibility" of Matthews to shore up Harwood's claim, yet they diss his credibility as sexist, and partisan all the time, not to mention racist on occasion.  So do you expect some of us to accept this from Matthews as gospel, when he is shredded here often for speaking anything but?

If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that, we disagree. 

I completely see the contradiction...but they're not saying "McCain's base is the press" and using Matthews to state a fact.  It's an opinion of Matthews which contradicts the opinion of Russert, and Media Matters is thus pointing out the contradiction of opinion.  They gave no weight to the information as fact, and therefore make no comment on the validity of his claims.  They've also went after Russert with slightly less fervor, so are we supposed to assume that Media Matters thinks neither claim is contradictory to the other and both are wrong?  They contradict each other.  That's all they are pointing out.

Are you saying you think this thread is here just to innocently point out two different opinions?  That's not what I am seeing, what I see is that MMFA is making a case, and using Matthews as backup, to say that the press is part of McCain's base....as stated by Harwood.  Russert responds and MMFA is essentially saying "Whoa, that's not what your colleague Matthews says".

You don't think MMFA has an opinion on whether or not they think the press is in the tank for McCain?  Of course they do. 

D,

Of course MMFA & every Liberal poster here thinks most of the media is in the tank for McCain & Republicans/Conservatives in general.

And there should be no doubt they usually include Matthews among those in the media who shill for the Right.

Matthews is a regular target here. Unless of course MMFA feels they can use him somehow.

BTW, I have never bought into the whole Conservative media bias crap. You've got soldiers for both sides pretending to be neutral.

MMFA feels Matthews distributes conservative misinformation or they wouldn't have labeled him misinfomer of the year (or whatever it is). I agree wth Tommy here, MMFA has not actually called him a "partisan hack" but what exactly is the definition of "partisan hack"? Isn't it feasible to make the argument that one who distributes conservative misinformation to the extent he is given an award for doing so could be labeled a partisan hack?

He isn't nearly the villian he is portrayed to be here. 

 

• - tommy / Monday May 12, 2008 5:04:09 PM EDT

Villian? He's an idiot.

They are not using Matthews as "backup." They're saying that even Matthews, with all his inanity, sees the issue clearly and even works for the same organization.

They're not using anybody as backup because the evidence is already there. They've documented it many times before. That's the backup.

"Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack"

Straw man in excelscis!!!!!!!!

 -- Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack -- tommy

That's what happens when you have a bunch of partisan hacks (mmfa) scurrying around the office digging through press articles and videos to find speech that they can wordsmith for political gain.

It's called being unprincipled.

After spilling barrels of ink on this site running down Mathews as a partisan buffoon...then to use him as some sort of credible barometer...you said it...RICH!

LMAO. 

Don't you think that by agreeing with John McCain's statement that the press was his base that Matthews' remarks confirmed that the press was indeed McCain's base? Either that or McCain's statement was wrong and, consequently, so was Matthews'. 

 -- Don't you think...that Matthews' remarks confirmed that the press was indeed McCain's base? -- irony

I find little that Mathews says is credible...so no...I don't think his comments carry much weight...or confirmed anything.

Do I think that McCain gets better treatment from the press than Clinton or Obama...sure do. I've always been perplexed as to why? Studies have shown that most members of the press are democrats or vote democrat...so giving favorable treatment to McCain has always puzzled me.

Wes,

The favorable treatment given to McCain was when he thumbed his nose at his own party, the press chewed that up like a cheeseburger.  When, and if, he cozies back up to them, he won't be so fawned over at that point.

Yeah...that makes sense.

I firmly believe that the real mission of media figures...not necessarily the organizations...is destruction. Most of them lay awake at night with their moist dreams...fantasizing about the story that they can write that destroys some individual or organization...not just giving the public good solid reporting.

its not destruction they seek, it's controversy.  destruction is only a bi-product of that.

I would agree with you, and add that a journalistic scoop and a damn good story trumps ideology all the time, which renders the media bias screamers as mostly blowing smoke and crying wolf.

Agreed, on both sides...that should be a mantra...controversy trumps ideology.  The motto of the press.

The favorable treatment given to McCain was when he thumbed his nose at his own party, the press chewed that up like a cheeseburger.  When, and if, he cozies back up to them, he won't be so fawned over at that point.

Bingo Tommy!

And that kind of points to a Liberal bias in the MSM doesn't it?

Sure, because they hated Bush in 2000 and 2004.  I mean, they went after him with a malice unseen in our political history.

oh wait, I was thinking of the other guys.

Get real, they'll love McCain no matter what he does because he's a Republican.

I get your drift. I just don't think Mathews, Russert or any of the other blathering heads are very significant.

 

I agree with you Wes, at least with respect to Matthews.  I find him very entertaining, but he has a limited viewership.

irony...posted out of order. My above comment was in reply to you.

I get your drift. I just don't think Mathews, Russert or any of the other blathering heads are very significant.

Wesley, my point was that if Matthews is a McCain sycophant didn't he prove that simply by agreeing with McCain? Russert at least denied that he was in the tank for McCain.

If you are confused by this, simply read What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (Basic Books, February 2003) and you will learn exactly how this works.  While the writers and other media conglomerate employees may vote democratic, they do not control the output.  That is determined by their superiors/editors.  Their work will not see the light of day or they will be fired if they do not produce the work that fits in the owners' ideological point of view.  If you do not get this basic premise, then your confusion is completely understandable and explains why this website exists in the first place.

Wesley, there you go with your arse again. Really, did you try putting dirt on it like someone suggested last week? Or perhaps you are laughing it off since it aches so bad?

 -- Yet when he speaks ill of a Democrat he is a partisan hack -- tommy

When has MMFA ever accused Matthews of being a partisan hack?

They never have.  

No but they have labeled him conservative misinformer of the year. If you give out conservative misinformation on a regular basis what are you called?

MMFA normally treats Matthews here like he's the court jester, but I guess he's their boy when it's convenient to try & make a case ;-)

 

I used to like Matthews but think he's gone around the bend during this primary season.

One of the reasons I liked him was the enthusiasm he has for politics. But he's been too gushy for my likes during this primary season. And some of his remarks have been off the wall.

I will give the guy kudos for being damn knowledgeable about politics. Just wish he'd tone down the theatrics a tad.

Irony, Tommy and his friends just float around trying to find some crack to crawl in with their puny illogical comments.  Their is no contradiction or hyprocrisy in using Mush mouth Matthews as a sign of media hyprocrisy and complicity in creating the phony McCain image. They know it, and their just try to obscure the obvious.  Nice try guys,but you got you got to come better than your above scribes.

I don't think they do know it.

"Irony, Tommy and his friends just float around trying to find some crack to crawl in with their puny illogical comments"

Wow! What omnipotent wisdom. How can anyone ever hope to equal your logical argumentation abilities. You bring so much factual evidence to your arguments (like the one above) it is difficult to get one by you. How's the weather in that wonderful ivory tower you live in? It must be nice to know that anyone who disagrees with your arguments are automatically putting forth an illogical argument. Why are those arguments illogical, well because if they are in disagreement with yours then by definition they are illogical right?

Kinda funny piece... Matthews admits he has been a whore. Russert declines. In the meantime, McCain still gets a pass. ;>)

The screech level may be going up.

Bob Barr has enterred the race as a Libertarian. Ron Paul and Hucky fans might like him.

Heard Hannity took the news well.....not.

Heard Hannity took the news well.....not.

Ooooh, gonna have to watch Hannity tonight then...assuming he can fit the Barr story in somewhere in the non-stop Jeremiah Wright coverage.  ;>)

I hope those fellers get lots and lots of votes. Just not too many ;-)

Timmy will no doubt have him on some, hard hitting reporter that he is, between those hard hitting questions on Rev. Wright. You can tell how hard hitting he is because he scowls sometimes.

This is one of my favorite sub-genres in the WITH arsenal-- the concrete thinking that gets totally stymied by a supporting quote from somebody who has been cited for misinformation in the past.

I think the confusion comes from that same mindset that likes to divide everything into black & white/good &evil. If he's made comments in the past that were misleading or biased, doesn't that mean that everything he ever says is a lie?

Imagine a prosecutor workiing for days to undermine the credibility of a suspect, pointing out inconsistencies in his account of his whereabouts during the crime. During questioning, the defendant lets slip a detail about the crime that hasn't been disclosed yet during the case, something that could only be known by somebody involved in the crime.

Should this remark be ignored by the prosecutor, as it would be giving the suspect credibility? Of course not, but it's entertaining to see that logic applied by the imagined-hypocrisy warriors here. Love your work.

I HAD A REAL GOOD LAUGH TODAY WHEN MCCAIN HAD THE NERVE TO COMPLAIN THAT THE MEDIA WAS GIVING HIM A HARD TIME. HEY WHATS UP WITH THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA THEY ARE ALL SAD. I GUESS THEY ARE UPSET WITH THE FACT THAT OBAMA HAS TAKEN THE LEAD. BUT LOOK FOR THE HAPPY FACES TUESDAY NIGHT WHEN THOSE BIG NUMBERS COME DOWN FOR HILLARY AND FOX NEWS IS TELLING A STORY THAT CNN,ABC,NBC,MSNBC AND CBS WILL BE ALL OVER THIS STORY.TOO BRING OBAMA DOWN AGAIN. A STORY THAT SOMEONE IN OBAMA CAMP HAD TO RESIGN BECASUE HE TALKED TO SOMEONE IN HAMMS. MARK MY WORD THE PRESS WILL BE ALL OVER THIS STORY UNLIKE THEY ARE WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS IN THE MCCAIN CAMP. I WILL BE WATCHING ALL THE RIGHT-WINGS SHOWS TUESDAY TO SEE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE THEM TO TALK ABOUT THIS STORY. I BET WOLF AT CNN WILL BE TALKING ABOUT IT AS SOON AS HIS SHOW COMES ON.

McCain has received one of history's biggest free rides from the media. That will not change as we move toward the general election in November. Nice work if you can get it.