Bio
Son-Noah.Daughter-Berit. Dog-Uma Thurman. One of my first assignments as a TV reporter in 1973 was to get an interview with Elvis Presley. Obviously,...
 
 
 
 

It's Time For MSNBC To Play Hardball with Chris Matthews And Itself

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

chris matthews

UPDATE: p>On Thursday January 17, 2008 Chris Matthews started his program, Hardball, with an apology for his remarks that Hillary Clinton's entire career was based on the fact that her husband had messed around.

You can watch it here or read about it here.

When Don Imus said a bad bad thing, MSNBC eventually found it's moral compass --once their advertisers ran for the hills --and righteously removed his morning program from the MSNBC lineup, nine days after the offensive remark was made.

In explaining his decision to fire Imus, NBC News President Steve Capus said,

I take no joy in this. It’s not a particularly happy moment, but it needed to happen,” he said. “I can’t ignore the fact that there is a very long list of inappropriate comments, of inappropriate banter, and it has to stop.

.


If inappropriate comments and inappropriate banter is the standard that NBC uses to determine whether an anchor should remain on the air, then NBC has some 'splaining to do' when it comes to one 62 -year- old Christopher John Matthews, host of the financially lucrative primetime program, "HARDBALL."

Perhaps MSNBC needs to share what its definition of "inappropriate is."

Would MSNBC consider the exchange in August between Matthews and CNBC Anchor Erin Burnett as inappropriate?
.
You can see the exchange for yourself on NewsBusters and YouTube.  The Sparks note version is at one point in the conversation Matthews asks Burnett to move closer to the camera. She is rattled by his request and  he finally says,
"Haw! Haw! Just kidding! you look great![...]No, you're beautiful! I'm just kidding! I'm just kidding! You're a knockout!"

In September, the target of Matthew's sexist comments was conservative pundit Laura Ingraham.As his soliloquy proves,, he knows that what he's saying is not appropriate, and yet he still says it.


Matthews: “Can I sing your praises? I’ll get in trouble for this, but you’re great looking, obviously. You’re one of the God’s gifts to men in this country, but also, you’re a hell of a writer, your books always do well, your radio show — I just looked at the numbers, you are up there, one of the top most listened to radio shows. I think you’re great, especially when you have me on, you’re fabulous Laura Ingraham, you’re great…


Does the network think that kind of exchange is appropriate? Evidently it does because Matthews is still on air. And as far as I can find, neither Matthews nor MSNBC has issued a public apology for his offensive, rude and crude remarks.

The real problem is not Matthews. It's the network itself. Matthews would quickly find a cure for his diarrhea of the mouth if the network decided to play Hardball and actually enforce some policies and procedures regarding sexual discrimination.

Unfortunately, it appears that MSNBC is an amoral organization, guided more by the whims of advertisers then a code of ethics that it has embraced and lives by. It can't force Matthews into behaving ethically because the organization evidently doesn't believe that sexist comments is a breach of its code of ethics.

Just this week The Golf Channel suspended anchor Kelly Tilghman for two weeks after she said players who want to challenge Tiger Woods should " lynch him in a back alley."

The Golf Channel didn't hesitate. They acted immediately because when it comes to racist comments the network is very clear on what is and isn't acceptable.

Without the benefit of a deeply held code of ethics, organizations like MSNBC tend to be reactive rather than proactive. They allow public opinion to determine their ethical stands.

It took a firestorm to get MSNBC to see that Imus' comments were "inappropriate."

Hold on to your hats, a blogostorm is forming.

On Friday, Media Matters launched a campaign to get MSNBC to do something , anything about Matthews behavior. Their main issue is the language used in discussing presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.


Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."



Also on Media Matters is

  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Kim Pearson 5 pts

1. It will probably take years of protests against these kinds of remarks. FAIR's campaign against Imus ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3082 ) goes back at least to 2000.
2. He will have to insult someone who is not a public figure.
3. People within the network, as well as people at the companies that advertise with them will have to register their displeasure. Al Roker and Bruce Gordon were two such examples in the Imus episode.
4. Professional organizations in the news industry will have to weigh in.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )|

Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

I thought you might mention this website, Sweet Jesus, I Hate Chris Matthews ( http://sweetjesusihatechrismatthews.blogspot.com/ ), since there was chatter about it yesterday on the CE list. When I looked at the site, I thought the approach used there was just as offensive as Matthews himself. I don't think acting as insulting as the supposed target of your complaint is quite the approach to use to achieve change.

A factual recitation of the man's own offensive remarks should be quite enough to do him in.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/