One of the few redeeming features of Chris Matthews is that he lacks the normal faculties of self-restraint which most journalists possess. As a result, he frequently says things which most of them would know better than to admit, but which nonetheless reveal how so many of them think.
Like most journalists this week, Matthews "reported" on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by expressing breathless admiration for the President and his heroic conquest. But Matthews, as he so often does, went much further. On his show on Thursday, he announced that we would learn the true implications of the death of Zarqawi by listening to Matthews' interview with James Jeffrey, the senior advisor to Condoleezza Rice. For the next ten minutes, Jeffrey dutifully recited the administration's talking points -- Zarqawi's death was a profound blow to Al-Qaeda, a vital step for freedom, a likely turning point in the war, etc. Matthews challenged nothing and excitedly agreed with virtually everything Jeffrey said. All of that is just garden-variety journalistic meekness, and not really worth noting.
But then, at the end of the interview, Matthews said this:
MATTHEWS: Well said. Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We‘re huge fans—bring her back with you next time.
For a variety of reasons, I watch cable news shows very rarely, so perhaps I'm finding a relatively common event to be remarkable. But the idea that a "journalist" would openly declare himself to be a "huge fan" of particular administration officials is unbelievable by any measure. How can Chris Matthews possibly report in any meaningful way on the actions of people of whom he is a "huge fan"? That's just obvious. That this sort of sentiment can be openly expressed on a major news network and not even be noticed is a very potent indication of the state of journalism today.
Journalists, of course, are supposed to be the opposite of "fans" of political leaders. They are intended to be watchdogs over them, skeptical of their statements, and eager to expose their ineptitude and corruption. The principal reason the Bush administration has been able to get away with their extremist and law-breaking actions is because journalists became "huge fans" of the President and his top aides in the wake of 9/11 and most have never given up their adolescent adoration. Matthews' comment is an excellent reminder of the true sentiments of most national journalists.
I had the opportunity this weekend to speak with Eric Boehlert at YearlyKos about the provocative title and cover of his book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, the cover of which shows a picture of President Bush's dog walking behind him. Eric recounted that several people had said that they thought the title and cover were too inflammatory, but that he nonetheless insisted on it because it accurately reflects the state of national journalism as he sees it. As one listens to Chris Matthews proclaim himself on MSNBC to be a "huge fan" of administration officials, who could contest Boehlert's view?
Chris Matthews is less repressed and less restrained than most of his fellow national journalists, which is what causes him unwittingly to admit things which they work hard to conceal. But while such undignified candor might be rare among most national journalists, there is nothing unusual about the sentiment Matthews expressed. Journalists have long been the biggest fans of the President. Although the administration's recent failures and unpopularity have caused them to temper their reverence, the Zarqawi killing this week, and the journalistic veneration which it triggered, made clear that this journalism fan club has not gone anywhere.
Hey Buddy That's Really K00l.
ReplyDeleteOf what use is a monarchy without a Court Circular?
ReplyDeleteI've "uncovered" a memo from the Office of the Vice President (which was quite a feat given that OVP is in D.C. and I'm in the middle of nowhere in Southwest Michigan). No doubt Chris Matthews will fail to report on the implications of it because he's one of the 18% of Americans that approve of Cheney. It gives seven "easy steps" for getting military intelligence from al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteHere are the first two steps:
1) Git 'em, dead or alive: Find a goat herder with a Casio watch and/or pay impoverished Afghanis and Pakistanis to capture drifters and turn them over to the U.S. military.
2) Bring them to justice: Take them to Guantanamo or another prison that has been sufficiently "Gitmo-ized." This is necessary because they're clearly "the worst of the worst" of the "bad guys." We know this because of the careful measures taken in step one.
I--I mean the memo--covers the latest scandal from Guantanamo and has a ton of links to other great resources. It's available here.
If a 'journalist' were to declare themselves a 'huge fan' of Al Gore, you would be far from the only one to find that remarkable, and you would have almost certainly witnessed their final appearance.
ReplyDeleteand you would have almost certainly witnessed their final appearance.
ReplyDeletePhil Donahue would agree....
Matthews is by far the worst - besides Faux.
ReplyDeleteHe's said Ann Coulter is a "great author" more than once.
And he also still owes DeLay one - for Tom making his retirement announcement to Chris.
I wonder what kind of payback Tom will get from Chris?
While both lap dogs for the Bush Administration, Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer have very different styles. Matthews blurts out his adoration, while Blitzer begs his guests to say it for him. Both are reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteMatthews is calculating, foolish sometimes, yes, but calculating always and he is driven by desire for attention. He must have been raised by a passive aggressive. He was more interested in telling Condi she could count on him so that he could secure his next interview than in exploring the elements of the story. One thing I have never understood was his going on camera in '03 and telling America that he had spoken on the phone with Rove who told him "Plame, as Wilson's wife was fair game". That action completely contradicts his actions before and after.
ReplyDeleteThere was a faint glimmer of hope recently when a number of media personalities actually had the nerve to suggest Ann Coulter might have gone too far in attacking the 9-11 widows. There was nothing really notable about the attack itself, ad hominem attacks to smear the messenger if they don't like the message have been absolutely standard operating procedure for the right for decades, and it's something of a specialty for Coulter. For someone who considers the final solution a family value and is regularly paid tens of thousands of dollars a pop by the RNC to rouse the Bush Youth with calls to send half of America to concentration camps, this one wasn't even particularly nasty. The only thing notable was that anyone dared to suggest publicly that it might not be entirely acceptable behavior. A couple of years ago I doubt that would have happened. They all would either have agreed with her, played 'fair and balanced' and pretended it was one equally valid side of a 'legitimate issue', or simple kept quiet.
ReplyDeleteCoulter also made a very revealing statement in response to being called out when she said it wasn't fair for the left to use the widows because their status as victims made them untouchable. This is a combination of two elements:
1. Real Americans all agree with the right on everything, so their message can't possibly be their own. Anyone who expresses an unrepublican opinion must be part of a nefarious far left-wing liberal conspiracy run by George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn or whoever the boogeyman of the week is. This is pretty much the standard 'we are the overwhelming majority theme'. I guess 70% of America is now on Soros' payroll.
2. Ad hominem smears to convince her audience to hate the messenger and avoid having to counter the message are not only legitimate politics and her right, but her obligation. The widows' status as victims of terrorism does not protect them from anyone disagreeing with their politics or their message. The sympathy Americans may feel for them only makes it more difficult to smear them personally. That is what Coulter is complaining about. She thinks it's not fair for someone who people are likely to sympathize with to express an opinion that will obligate her and her right-wing ilk to demonize them because it makes that job harder. I can't say I have much sympathy there, but I find it interesting that she has unambiguously admitted being a hate-monger to anyone who was paying attention. Not that we needed her to tell us.
I don't think this tepid media reaction means there has been a major sea change, only a ray of hope that someday America might get back to a place where people aren't completely exempted from even the most basic standards of human decency simply by virtue of being called a conservative.
Groupies is right, and another blogger (Somerby?) added "nannies" which also is applicable to today's despicable, GOP-loving media.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why Chris Matthews and much of the MSM press make themselves superfluous by simply acting as a conduit for the Administration's talking points. They serve little journalistic purpose and certainly aren't helping us out by passively accepting their points and asking undemanding, dull questions that garner no further insight.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is one single place for the administration to shit out their talking points. We could have a channel where they just repeat what they deem is best for the country and their certified opinions.
Perhaps the problem is that you have been under the mis-understanding that Chris Matthews is a journalist. Seriously, I am not sure if he would even make such an outrageous claim. He is an entertainer.
ReplyDeleteFor a variety of reasons, I watch cable news shows very rarely, so perhaps I'm finding a relatively common event to be remarkable. But the idea that a "journalist" would openly declare himself to be a "huge fan" of particular administration officials is unbelievable by any measure.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you watch Amy Goodman for news on your local public access channels if you are going to watch cable news. Or watch it on line here. You will enjoy seeing that "iberal bias" everyone talks about and so rarely confuse with honesty and factual reality.
Armagednoutahere said...
ReplyDeleteBob Somerby over at The Daily Howler does excellent work of watchdogging the lapdogs. His work on the MSM's trashing of Gore and their culpability in putting Bush in power has been fantastic. Along with Unclaimed Territory, The Howler is worth reading every day.
He also smeared Joe Wilson, a true American patriot if there ever was one. Screw Somerby. He's a wanker.
Perhaps the problem is that you have been under the mis-understanding that Chris Matthews is a journalist. Seriously, I am not sure if he would even make such an outrageous claim. He is an entertainer.
ReplyDeleteMSNBC considers Matthews a journalist, not a pundit. He is held to the same "standards" as Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Andrea Mitchell and all other towering, crusading "journalists" employed by NBC. Saying that he is an "entertainer" is to define the problem, not to excuse it.
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteA Real Problem
Once upon a time journalists were disreputable. They were all working-class stiffs, just like cops.
Paul Rosenberg is a disreputable, working-class stiff. Give him a press pass and a typewriter.
But I am very conscious of not letting such gut-level reactions guide my work as a journalist. In fact, my own surprise at my instictive reaction raised my level of vigilance. I'm going to have that little incident in the back of my mind for a long time now, as a warning of what I'm capable of.
ReplyDeleteInteresting antecdote, Paul. Having just spent the weekend at Yearly Kos, watching all sorts of self-styled outsider, rebel bloggers sit on panels and attend parties and chat with all sorts of mainstream media figures and politicians, I really wonder whether the blogosphere's newfound acceptance is going to start to lure bloggers into a desire to gain access, prestige, status, etc., and to what extent that will alter the character of the blogosphere. Ultimately, it's probably too difficult to talk about the blogosphere as though it's a monolith - some will, some won't - but there is clearly a change with how the blogosphere is being perceived and treated and there is a real possibility that it can change the medium in substantive ways. We will see. I will probably post more about that in the next couple of days.
Perhaps the problem is that you have been under the mis-understanding that Chris Matthews is a journalist. Seriously, I am not sure if he would even make such an outrageous claim. He is an entertainer.
ReplyDeleteMatthews isn't entertaining. Matthews came to the job, like so many do, as a Washington insider, having worked in the Carter administration.
Nowadays, however, politicians and journalists come from roughly the same class. It's quite visible on the national stage, where folks on one side are married to folks on the other, or even switch sides themselves. But it's true all the way down to local level.
ReplyDeleteLike J.D. Hayworth. This is what happens when you let a local weatherman go into politics. What kind of weather do they have in Arizona, after all?
Maybe Paul can speak to this but I think the institution of journalism may have undergone a slower transformation during the last 40 years when TV and mass media, mass communications became the prime gigs to have. When I returned to college in the late 80s I noticed the difference between the "talking heads" and the old fashioned print media people. For the most part, the people who went into the former class were air heads and still are.
Well, when journalists are former political operatives or congress people, you pretty much have to expect that viewpoints from them are going to be biased in some way.
ReplyDeleteWhen DC insiders become journalists and commentators, don't expect "objectivity" or truth as it really is. What is truth next to "access"? Journalism, as it now stands is just a part of the Washington DC political establishment!
Let's not forget "I just love that phrase," meaning Republican strategist when talking to Vin Weber/
ReplyDeleteAl Zarqawi and his 72 Virgins
ReplyDeleteI hate Elvis references, but which Al Zarqawi do the 72 virgins get, the fat one or the thin one? Or maybe they get the bloodied, battered, blown up one....
Dag
He also smeared Joe Wilson, a true American patriot if there ever was one. Screw Somerby. He's a wanker.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is truly a mystery to me. He can do amazing work, such as on Gore and the general supine nature of the MSM when it comes to Bush. But then he spews some amazingly ill-considered trash about Joe Wilson that just boggled my mind. Not to mention he's extremely thin-skinned and super self-righteous.
Matthews is an interesting case. While he worked for Tip O'Neill way back, he had a genuine admiration for Reagan. At the end of one of his books (I forget which -- it was the only one I read) he wrote about what kind of leader could captivate the American psyche. He wrote -- using Reagan as a model -- about "the man with the sun on his face" who could project an optimistic, self-reliant attitude with authenticity.
ReplyDeleteAs is inevitable with such portraits, Matthews was projecting his own ideals. Two things struck me then and now about his vision. First, "the man with the sun on his face" is in many ways a warmer "man on horseback" - the classic symbol of authoritarianism. Apart from the warmth of his persona, there's nothing democratic or law-abiding about him. Second, the "man with the sun on his face" is a persona, a facade; no content is required. Matthews' ideal is pathetically shallow for a serious inhabitant of the public sphere.
Put those two things together, and it's clear that Matthews' "gee whiz" adulation for this administration is for real. At a gut level, he loves George W. Bush. This becomes even clearer from his astonishment every time the public briefly seems to recognize this administration for the train wreck that it is. To end on a snarky note: if you had to pick one prominent member of the press corps who had a gay crush on W, wouldn't it be Matthews?
Chris Matthews is NOT a journalist, nor is anyone else hosting these newshows.
ReplyDeleteMore than 20 years ago a DC journalist friend of mine referred to the Sunday Chat shows as The Game Shows. And that is what they are.
Chris Matthews, et al are, in the immortal sneering words of Lou Grant, "quizzzzzmasters."
Glenn, I think your point is well-taken. One potential problem with your view is that it does not reflect the way that journalists and media generate stories. I think that what Matthews was doing was buttering up his guest to get an interview with Condi Rice.
ReplyDeleteSure, you might get sickened by the obsequiousnes with which Matthews goes about this, but that's just a matter of taste, perhaps; you might even say that Matthews is letting his listeners in on how Washington works--ie, this type of sycophancy, kissing up, gets you the big interviews.
Perhaps Paul can talk more to the following desctiption of the general journalistic practice provided by Leon Mayhew in The New Public: Professional communication and the means of sociall influence. Mayhew puts together two notions in his analysis of the journalistic enterprise: objectivity and sources.
In fact, objectivity--the key criterion in our culture for laying the basis for truth--is provided by sources with inside information. The closer to the source, the more objective the information is. This accords with a definition of objectivity that correlates it with influence.
According to Mayhew, empirical studies show that sources are the main criteria that journalists use to write their articles/report news:
This generalization derives from studies of how workers in the news industry decide who should be granted the status of a source. There are two categories of sources: routine sources that provide press releases and similar forms of packaged information and enterprise sources that are generated by reporters' independent efforts to find people who can supply or sorroborate stories (Epstein 1973). Epstein's study of 2,850 news stories publcished in the New York Times and Washington Post over a fourteen-year period documented that only about a quarter of these stories were based on enterprise sources. The rest were based on ready made sources. More than half were supplied by officials of the federal government, including the legislative branch (Epstein 1973, 119-30). ... Choosing sources as principal sources flows directly from the two main criteria for choosing sources: credible knowledge and capacity to represent constituencies. Officials are presumed responsible and close to the scenes of action, which makes them what Fishman (1980) has called "people entitled to know what they say" and thus "authorized knowers." Networks of authorized knowers upon whom journalists routinely depend constitute a "web of facticity" (Tuchman 1978, 82-103) that bestows credibility on news workers. [emphasis in original] (Mayhew, p. 252)
Given these facts, Matthews was simply doing what any good journalist does: stroking potential sources and keeping himself in the loop for information emanating from the "web of facticity."
From Mayhew's viewpoint, there's much that's simply the way of doing business to this process, nothing sinister at all. Yet, he does think that these procedures can be anti-democratic, especially when they are taken for granted and unquestioned in the way they give the impression of unbiased, objective reporting.
In the hands of media professionals whose sole purpose is to leak "source" material, this way of doing business is used to hide facts and slant news, creating an environment of disinformation and unquestioned influence.
As is seen in the way that much of the news surrounding the Iraq war was reported, the administration maintains its monopoly on sourcing information, thereby controlling what is and is not known. For Mayhew, by definition a democracy requires a space for people to ask questions and receive answers. This process is short-circuited by the way that the news is held captive to the sourcing model.
Let's not forget that Matthew's brother is running on the republican ticket for Lt Gov in PA. I'll bet Matthews' sucking up isn't JUST a reflection of his man-crush on Bush and all who surround him, but also a calculated attempt to curry favor with the republican political machine for his brother's sake.
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of curious to know if he thinks of himself as a 'journalist.' (I don't think of him as one- I think of him as a political talk show host.) Has he ever indicated one way or the other whether he considers himself to be a journalist? I don't watch him enough to know...