Rolling Stoned
Just noticed (via an inbound link to me) a spicy new blog by Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone. A welcome breath of fresh air as Tim deflates the huffing and puffing by the Internet Liberals in their faux war with Chris Matthews at Hardball.
Good for Tim. Matthews can blow plenty of balmy gusts; but what an asinine, pointless fight some of the mainstay liberal bloggers have picked with him. They didn’t like a crack he made about the Almighty Michael Moore, so now a compendium of overheated lib bloggers are mounting a boycott of Hardball.
As I said, how idiotic can you get? Did they not notice that Matthews is also the only cable TV news host that has consistently skewered the administration’s war policy? And precisely because Matthews can’t control his mouth and is prone to reckless speech, he is by far the toughest interviewer on the tube. Can’t the lib bloggers find something better to do with their fingers?
Anyway, also gonna blogroll Dickinson and make him a regular read. You should too. Start by reading this level-headed post by him.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 am
Had the same thought. It’s weird but sometimes they seem like the mirror image of the right wing scream machine. Listened to something actually decent on KPFK today. A woman was trying to raise some start up money for a living wage textile factory in El Salvador. Of course, I didn’t trust the host to let me know if this whole thing is a fraud, but it’s the kind of story I like to see coming out of KPFK.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I agree that we lefties sometimes overdo it. But it isn’t just the Michael Moore comment. Matthews has pulled some incredibly stupid ones. The difference is that other hosts are either sellouts or scumbags. I think Matthews is trying to talk so fast, he can’t figure out what he’s saying.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Well he looks hard at all sides, but he also voted for Bush so, some skepticism is in order. On the whole though he’s willing to skewer anyone who deserves it. On cable he’s as good as it gets.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
The great irony here is that those on the left who shout “fascism” and “censorship” at the drop of hat — mount a campaign to silence someone with whom they disagree.
When you consider that the combined Pacifica network stations potentially could reach a much larger audience than MSNBC, it becomes laughable. All you need is some compelling, coherrent progamming. Something that someone would listen to.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Marc, good post, nice to see you blogging up a storm and daring to engage in common sense. Because I don’t read a lot of blogs (I mostly just stare into space), I don’t know the full background of the Matthews boycott. But Matthews did not compare Michael Moore to a terrorist, or to Osama. No, he seemed to be saying (at 100 miles an hour) that Osama was changing his tune and trying to sound more like Michael Moore. The emphasis was entirely on Osama’s PR campaign. That’s how I read it, in any case. But more to the point, I worry that the national discussion isn’t just rancorous (and in fact, rancor isn’t bad — rancor can be put to good political use!), but that there’s a tabloid quality to it. It’s the same all over the political spectrum. Look at Ann Coulter. It’s a clown act. But she goes straight to number one. Anyway, hope you are doing well. Best, Joel
January 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The only “suit” that makes any sense at all, is Lou Dobbs on CNN–if you have a chance read his book entitled “Exporting America.”
Yesterday Dobbs mentioned that Vincente Fox was going to handout maps to illegal aliens on how to get through U.S. borders without getting caught.
Chris Matthew is nothing special; his questions are not probing but obvious—-his odd appeal comes from audiences who are entertained by an acerbic, hyenic
Interview technique.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I agree that “lefties sometimes overdo it.”
January 27th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Whenever I have to put up with Cable News – I get my news online and on the radio via Democracy Now! – I much prefer Keith Olberman’s “Countdown” to “Hardball.”
Matthews “consistently skewers the administration’s war policy”, but this is only after four past Republican administration’s worth of former Pentagon and Intelligence members began coming out in total opposition and incredulation at Bush’s utter incompetence in Iraq. Add these Republican dissenters to the now majority of Americans who question the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq; and it is no wonder why Matthews now – and only now – “skewers the Bush administration’s war policy.”
During the campaign season in 2004, I did watch a lot of Matthews at a female acquaintances and all I detected was anger and hostility by Matthews toward Democratic candidates Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, and (especially) Dennis Kucinich. In one bizarre exchange, Matthews even grilled Kucinich over Ohio congressman’s statement that some Republicans probably wanted to send abortion doctors to jail. Matthews just pounded him and pounded him, with me wondering why Matthews is never this hard on Republican or Centrist Democrats on his show.
But for me what takes the cake is Matthews saying in 2000 that “it would be JUST LIKE Al Gore to accept the presidency on only an electoral win without the popular vote,” implying that Al Gore should not take office as President if he didn’t win the popular vote (Eric Alterman cited this in his book, What Liberal Media?)
Well, it has been over five years now and I still have yet to hear Matthews call for Bush to resign because he didn’t win the popular vote in 2000.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
He voted for Bush in 2000. I would add that “righties” overdoing it is the baseline for them. This is just a sideshow.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
What really irritates me most about Matthews is that he is perhaps most responsible – aside from John McLaughlin and the old CNN noise-a-rama- “Crossfire” – at shrinking political discourse down to a five minute shouting contest; whereby the “winner” of the five mnutes of opposing soundbites comprising the “debate” is whoever sounds the most macho.
I am with Eleanore on this. Matthews is utter bollocks.
January 27th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Chris Mathews is the toughest interviewer on TV ? No comment…except that if that assertion is true, it’s just more evidence that the crap on cable news and newstalk isn’t worth watching. I find most of it useless and totally expendable given the number of other infinitely better sources available. And for infotainment I prefer McLaughlin and Jon Stewart. While they’re nowhere near my idea of “perfection”, the Newshour is still just about the only television news and political discussion that’s worth the time spent. They allow more than inane soundbites and don’t gleefully embarrass themselves for seven figures night after night like most of the rest.
Chris Mathews ? Holy crap !
January 27th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Great comments, David.
January 27th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
where did you here that Mathews voted for Bush in 2000 M. York?
I am not disputing it just curious.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Well.. sorry.. but Matthews is the toughest interviewer on TV. I havent seen anyone else;s name put forward. In the end, of course, it’s a matter of taste. Watch or dont watch who you please. That’s why these speech-code boycotts turn me off. As stated above, we need more discourse, not less.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now!” is way tougher, even though she isn’t on mainstream cable tv.
Bob Costas had a few stints filling in for CNN’s Larry King, who is so awful as an interviewer, by the way, that it is painful to watch the old guy (that James Frey interview had to be a career low in a career already larded with lows). Boy, the typical softballs thrown by King at his guests were replaced by veritable 100+ mph scorchers courtesy of Costas. Costas just hammered Bush’s people with such a ferocity as I have never seen in a journalist! I had always looked at Costas as just being a very knowledgable sports guy. Now, I think that the best thing that CNN could do would be to fire that idiot Larry King and replace him with Costas.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I think some of the heat over Mathews comment verges on the silly and seems like faux indignation to pick a bone with someone you already can’t stand. Personally I find Mathews about 85% maddening and ridiculous and 15% hardhitting. Maybe that’s a respectable ratio in his corner of LalaLand. I’m not sure. I have to say that I found Dickenson’s praise of Andrea Mitchell astounding. The woman is one of the worst and if the quotes he gleaned from her are reason to rejoice over the state of network journalism, we’re obvously fucked. Which regardless of Tim D’s commentry one way or another , we pretty much are when it comes to broadcast journalism.
But in general I believe that the way Arianna goes after the ridiculously over-rated Russert, the heat generated over Howell’s comments at the Post and the kind of treatment Atrios regularly gives to The Screamer are very postive – because it counters the right-wing’s very successful campaign to “play the refs” and create a climate among journalists – and more to the point, their employers – of self-consciousness about any of their “liberal” tendencies. It’s this paradigm shift to the right that was created around the press that accounts for Andrea Mitchell not being taken to task for being a shill or Mathews and Russert being percieved as tough guys. Any sense these infotainment whores get that they are under broader scrutiny than that of the hard right is a positive, because they’ve all mostly swung to the right compliantly as the right-wing’s rhetorical strategy played out over the years. Spiro Agnew wasn’t disgraced – he and his ghost have been successfully in charge of defining the political “drift” of the press over many a decade while liberals pretty much just sat on their hands and whined. Now they’re getting aggressive and pushing back, which is as it should be – even when it’s over the top. There’s light as well as heat being generated, which is what the press in it’s broadest sense is supposed to be about and should never fear. Until recently most of the heat has been one-sided.
January 28th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Dennis Mosher writes: “The great irony here is that those on the left who shout “fascism†and “censorship†at the drop of hat — mount a campaign to silence someone with whom they disagree.”
No one is calling for him to be “silenced” as far as I can tell. They’re urging their readers to boycott his wanking every night at 7pm on Hardball. He certainly has a “right” to make a fool of himself five nights a week. No one is challenging that.
And this is hardly the first time Tweety has shown himself to be a moron. Come to think of it, as Reg points out above, the whole NBC yuk-fest of Russert, Mathews, et al are really showing their true moron stripes lately.
What’s interesting is how “scared” people’s reactions are to the left standing up for its principles. As Reg said the heat has been one-sided for so long, they’re freaking out.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
He admitted it on the show a while back and I happened to be watching. I don’t now because I don’t get the channel anymore but he’s also on NBC Saturday nights. I watch that.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Personally, I think that the toughest interviewer on all of mainstream television is Ed Bradley from 60 Minutes (a show that should be on every day instead of just on Sunday). I sometimes think the content could be a little more daring, but all in all I give Bradley the nod.
Regardless, deciding who to put at the “top of the heap” of television interviewers is a little bit like asking, “who is the best cat: Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, or Benji?” Or, “who is more Italian: 50 Cent or Margaret Cho?”
The problem is that mainstream television requires that its employees stay within a certain boundary of expressible opinion, and that interviewers ask questions that “are on everybody’s mind,” but rarely questions that are not on everybody’s mind, but that nevertheless need to be asked and scrutinized.
January 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Thanks Cooper, for promoting just the sort of nonsense that always marks your own work.
How levelheaded to compleatly ignore the beefs Matthews left wing critics have with him, and proceed from there. Levelheaded like a mentaly challenged fox.
Yeah I KNOW Matthews plays both sides of the street, just like Enron smeared a few bucks on the Dems, at the Republicans behest no doubt. So even if he’s “Kenny Boy” it’s written off as a bipartisan scandel. Gosh, it’s a tough game to see through. Now that Abramoff screwed up the game by forgetting to do it; Matthew’s boss’s at GE has simply moved the goal posts (We’ll, people he KNEW gave money to the Democrates) and the card carrying tit for tatters will know doubt swallow the gruel.
I think you go so levelheaded somebody stuck a stick through your ears. Anyway, for a more truthful defense of Matthews (and one I don’t agree with) check out “The Daily Howler”,
but read the archives too. Matthews and Gordon Liddy talking about how great Bush’s penis looked in his flight suit is a classic.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Paranoia strikes deep!
Anyway, Mr. Wall, on behalf of the American working class, I can;t tell you with how much anticipation we look forward to folks like you taking power! What a wonderfully free, diverse and tolerant society you would create.
For the more serious minded… I have NO shame in revealing that during camapaign 2004, Hardball was the only show I TiVoed every nite. I found it invaluable, frankly. Matthews had the very best line-up of guests — including from the left (Katrina vanden Heuvel appeared many many times).
Some of his questions were certainly screwball. Others were relentlessly tough. Matthews is unlike any other talk show host because anything– literally the most off the wall thought– can come out of his motor mouth. Shouldnt we be encouraged by such oddball hosts? Or do we just want more button-downed cyborgs?
Matthews’ biases are worn on his sleeve. He’s a socially conservative Catholic Democrat– representative, by the way, of the tradtional ethnic white working class vote the Dems have been losing to the GOP for the last 25 years.
It took me about 2 minutes to decipher those biases… and then? And then, I took and take them into account as I watch his show.
What Mattews brings to the table is an uncontained passion for and glee in real-life politicas as a wrestling match, which it is. The perspective he brings, precisely, is not that of an ideological left — not as politics as they should be. But as they are. In that sense, he’s a valuable marker of conventional thinking.
Anyway, I’d take Matthews in a New York minute over any of the bloggers who are trying to boycott Hardball.
I dont think bombarding a host with spam email is in any way “the left pushing back.” I think it is a bunch of people wanking off.
I wonder, Reg, by the way… do u ever watch the show. or are u firing blanks?
January 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
P.S. Reg… I just re-read ur post and I take back the question.
BTW, I fully share ur view of the loathsome Andrea Mitchell… and Matthews pandering to her is equally revolting (tho… they both work for the same network and I doubt he would be permitted a more distant view).
I also abhorr Matthew’s panting over the Horrible Peggy Noon– but he’s a sucker for her crap.
But I like the Matthews who will bring on eitehr Howard Dead or Ken Mehlman and equally roast their nuts– he calls them out on their spin and bromides unlike on any other show I have at least seen.
Or maybe Im hallucinating!
January 28th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
I’m not sure why you’re withdrawing the question – truth is, if I put myself through the meat-grinder of switching between Georgie and Tim on a Sunday morning, I usually stick around for Mathews. That’s about twice a month, which is too much and I wouldn’t do it if I could get the better half out of bed for breakfast an hour or so earlier on weekends. I have to admit that I don’t watch his weekly show. Maybe he does some good interviews, but I just find his entire class of “journalists” to be sorely lacking and more full of themselves than serving their audience. Kevin Drum has a good post up on TAP’s analysis of the Abramoff “bi-partisan” scandal that any Beltway scribe worth their salt should have done themselves in setting the tone of their reporting. But they didn’t, just as they usually don’t go beneath the surface of “conventional wisdom”. Cliches are their stock in trade. Joe Klein is another one who drives me crazy. The reason guys like Klein, Russert and Mathews bug me more than, say, Andrea Mitchell is that I think – based on those moments when they do seem to have some substance – that they should know better and try more consistently to be journalistic in the serious sense than shoddy infotainment stars.
January 28th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“I have to admit that I don’t watch his weekly show.” That should have been “weekday show”.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
One last comment on Mathews – I don’t know if Marc used the term “hyperventilating” or someone else or if it just popped into my spongy brain – but that is “literally” the mode that he imposes on a discussion. It’s like watching a kid with ADD. I have a terrible habit of interrupting people in some conversations because I get so involved in thinking ahead or assuming I can anticipate what they’re about to say. It’s a major flaw that I do my best to control and it embarrasses me as much as I’m sure it annoys others. I’m not quite as crazed as Chris, but I understand some of Mathews’ energy and believe it’s more of a detriment to good discussion than I think he comprehends. If I could rid myself of that over-intense but ultimately juvenile, disrespectful trait I would. Mathews, I have a nasty feeling, is proud of it and thinks he’s cute.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
“Matthews had the very best line-up of guests — including from the left (Katrina vanden Heuvel appeared many many times).”
Okay…one more comment. Is KVH lame or what ? I don’t think it’s part of some “conspiracy” but if I wanted to perpetuate the image of an ineffectual left, I’d invite her on as my main guest.
January 28th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
If I want to see a good interview I watch Charlie Rose, David Brancaccio or Bill Moyers or I listen to Terry Gross (who in my opinion, may be one of the best interviewers in the history of broadcasting),
What I can’t take about Matthews is less what he says than his volume. Has he never heard of decaf?
January 28th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Mr. Cooper, given the level of fair play in your writings on Al Gore, David Brock, and many others, you’re not in much of a posistion to scold me on civility. Maybe if I, like the cronicly inaccurate Matthews, was pulling down a massive paycheck from GE, you could apprciate my energy. Also, I have no idea what being a traditional Irish Catholic has to do with ogling the President’s crouch on T.V., but I am first to admit I know almost nothing about religion.
Yes, I KNOW the reporting at GE has prejudices you can see threw in about two minutes. Some of those hardballs are a lot softer than others, however, and you might take an extra minute and see who gets tossed them. Since, basicly, Matthews take is in line with yours ( “isn’t it crazy to suggest one party is more corrupt than the other?”) I think it’s bigger of me to do so and watch some of this stuff. So does that mean when “Hardball” to site just one example, tried with obviousness both painful and hilarious to throw the Veep debate to Cheney; I’m supposed to not notice it, and not complain?
Yes, have good manners ye powerless progressive, your reward awaits you in Heaven. In the meantime, be a good sport while we throw the game. As part of “not a dimes worth of diference” gang, watching the hard right pack the court, don’t YOU get bored with the same tired line?
What the liberal bloggers are doing is the same thing right wingers did to get their thumb (seemingly permanently) affixed to the scale. They’re speaking up, and not being good sports.
When both “Hardball” and “The Today Show” try to cast Abrimoff as a bipartisan scandel (sorry for referring to what
this is actually about) they have GE dead to rights, and they
should blog bloody murder.
So take two minutes, see threw my predjudices, and confront the facts.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Toughest interviewer, Matthews? Depends on the phase of the moon, and if he has a beltway function that evening. Steering the not so “kewl kids” to the supermarket chardonnay and reheated crab cakes are a brutal but effective way of keeping the pundit class in line. Better to get the good stuff. Works on you Marc. You and Hitchypoo put the “social” in socialist.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
There’s no excuse for the very well paid Matthews, Russerts, Kings, et al. not to be asking at every opportunity the hard hitting questions any informed viewer would be asking.
If you’re only watching to find out what the average American is learning, then you’re wasting your time and you’re getting the fare you deserve. I say boycott the lot of ‘em! And get you’re information from someone who deserves your attention.
January 28th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
“It’s like watching a kid with ADD….. I have a nasty feeling, he is proud of it and thinks he’s cute.”
I agree Reg. His regular habit of just butting right into the beginning or middle, but rarely the end, of a guest’s answer to a rapid fire question is just highly irritating to us listeners, not to mention his guests. Why they put up with it and consistently let him get away with it has always puzzled be some. I mean all you have do is butt right back in and say “May I finish!” in a parent sort of way to get his childish attention back. Do they get paid well on his show?
Anyway, on the whole I find his program entertaining, in a McLaughlin sort of way. I like his middle political position and he is always knowledgeable and well prepared.
January 28th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Marc, I’ve got to admit you are correct on this one. Unfortunately I find myself gravitating to Matthews also….it’s really pathetic, corporate TV.
I guess everyone should pick their battles carefully. But I am no one to talk, I roasted John Stewart a while back, but I did not try to start a destructive circle jerk – I will spare everyone the reason.
Matthews has some of the best balance of guests on his show. I’m sure he winces at what GE might think sometimes – but he keeps a good mix. He has his problems, but they do not offend me. Even if they did, it’s no reason to harrass the man. Anyhow, that’s what I think.
January 29th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Since this thread has been around for a bit, I’m going to take the liberty of posting something OffTopic that I found very funny and very…uh…if I used the term “spot on”, it would be “spot on”. Even though it’s from a hard-core liberal Democrat, I’d bet even Woody would appreciate it this dig at French pretensions in the form of Garrison Keillor’s take down of “BHL” – Bernard Henri-Levy and his new book on America – in today’s Times Book Review. Priceless…
http://tinyurl.com/8veeo
January 29th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
“Okay…one more comment. Is KVH lame or what ? I don’t think it’s part of some “conspiracy†but if I wanted to perpetuate the image of an ineffectual left, I’d invite her on as my main guest.”
Actually, if I wanted to “perpetuate the image of an ineffectual left” I’d put Tom Oliphant on every night. Dude looks like Ichabod f—in’ Crane.
January 29th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
I like Tom Oliphant, but I have a fantasy of Oliphant, George Will and Tom Wolfe all appearing on a panel together. That would be about as weird a visual as you could find.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
reg,
Throw in Sam Waterston to that group and everyone will have nightmares.
January 29th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
I’ve got nothing against Oliphant, mind you, but he looks like every 7th grader who ever got shoved in a locker. He’s not the standard bearer your political side wants when the nation’s at war.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Yeah well he’s married to Susan Spencer of CBS, so the nerd thing didn’t impede him in that department.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Following up on reg, how much of Matthew’s supposed toughness is really just impatience. I got so impatient with his impatience, wanting him to shut up so that we could actually get a full answer to one of his breathless questions that I just stopped watching. I’ve felt better and more like myself ever since. My posture’s improved and I can take pleasure again in simple things.
Also – I get nauseated by all the tough-nut 1950′s Irish moral churlishness when dispensed by glitzy meadia types like Matthews, Noonan, Russert and to a degree Maureen Dowd. I want to gag when Dowd portrays herself as a sort of scullery maid (in her relationship with George Bush Sr. for example ) and when Matthews pretends to be a Philadelphia cop.
January 31st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Marc,
This moral equivalent of a hand job for Tom Delay is a far better reason to dis Chris.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
[...]  A reminder: NBC’s David Gregory is often the featured reporter on Chris Matthews’ Hardball. This is the show that some Liberal Netwits were clamoring to boycott because Matthews said something they didn’t like about Michael Moore. On the way home this afternoon, I heard the entire Hardball show on satellite radio and Matthews continually and relentlessly ripped the White House/Bush/Cheney on the whole shooting affair. Here’s the link to the debunking of the anti-Matthews boycott. [...]
July 22nd, 2006 at 6:32 am
Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.nvn