Here's something you probably never thought in your wildest dreams you'd hear a Democrat say about MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews:
Do I think he is shamelessly biased and doesn’t care about being biased? Absolutely.
Be still my heart.
As I'm sure you're in as much disbelief as I, and must hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak, the following was reported by The Hill Monday, and somehow slipped underneath the radar until NB member Par for the Course made me aware of it moments ago (emphasis added):
[O]ne of [Hillary Clinton's] closest confidants, Lanny Davis, a former top adviser to her husband (and a regular contributor to The Hill’s Pundits Blog), is bashing and accusing MSNBC of abandoning promises to do something about bias.
Davis says he spoke with a “member of senior MSNBC management” who “told me personally that they were aware that they needed to do something to bring credibility back to MSNBC in terms of balance.”
The former Clinton adviser points to MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann as culprits. Though he says he personally likes the men, citing a 25-year-old friendship with Matthews, he thinks their shows are deplorably one-sided.
Davis says he takes no issue with Matthews and Olbermann being anti-Clinton. His problem, he says, is that they offer no counterpoint. [...]
Davis ran into Matthews at a reception; he says the host told him, “I’m going to be better.” But he isn’t sure he meant it. “Do I think he is shamelessly biased and doesn’t care about being biased? Absolutely. Even after he admits to wanting to be better, he doesn’t do better.”
Davis says the network has become totally biased, certainly against Clinton. “It has become a completely shameless, one-sided, personal attack-oriented evening network. The great news organization [helmed] by Brian Williams portrays itself as fair and balanced. … My gut is he [Brian Williams] has just washed his hands of it.” [...]
“No, I would not go on either Olbermann or Matthews ever,” Davis says, later clarifying that he’d need assurances of fairness for that to happen.
Hopefully, such sentiments will become more commonplace in the Democrat Party as folks really begin to understand just how terrible a job this network does.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberals
May 9, 2008 - 09:44 ET by iveseenitallAs their "friends" like Matthews abandon them, even the "liberals" are discovering that I am right---Never, Never trust a "liberal"!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Fox and Friends
May 9, 2008 - 10:08 ET by allanfFunny that the Clintonites are coming to see FOX News as the fairest and most balanced of the lot.
Sure they are saying this
May 9, 2008 - 09:46 ET by taterSure they are saying this because it's Hillary that's being thrown under the bus. Even some of my more liberal friends know that the media is fawning over Obama. It'll be absolute 0 in hell when you hear a Democrat say anything about the bias a Republican gets in the media.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Naive
May 9, 2008 - 10:28 ET by iveseenitall"...wanting to do better, he doesn't do better". Just goes to show you how naive guys like Davis are. Matthews has never wanted to "do better". He's lying through his teeth. Moreover, what immaturity. Matthews' promises to "do better" sound like a 14 yr. old with his poor report card. And Davis' complaints sound like a doting grandmother. Scheeze! But what's new?-- they're "liberals".
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
»→ Lanny Davis
May 9, 2008 - 10:28 ET by Cool ArrowHey Lanny! The MSM is in the tank for Obama?
Ya think?
♣ a seal
As much as I disagree
May 9, 2008 - 10:52 ET by marpelAs much as I disagree politically with Lanny Davis, I have admired him for "sticking to his guns" in the loyalty department. Sometimes I think he's naive about the Clintons, but that's his business. I really don't know if the Clintons would be as loyal to him.
Nonetheless, the MSNBC political machine, campaigning for Obama, is pathetic and truly a joke. Bill O'Reilly mentioned last night that he felt MSNBC was in the tank for Obama because they think that will boost ratings. It has somewhat, but I don't think that's the only reason why the MSNBC network has become a continuous free political ad for Barack. The other reason is because they like the sexual pleasure they get from Barack's mere existance. I would love to see a "cat fight" between Chris Matthews and Keith O over Barack. That would be "special", wouldn't it? Who do you all think would win out for Barack's affections? Opinions? LOL
Lanny Looks You in the Eye
May 9, 2008 - 11:04 ET by CaringwhiteguyI don't believe I've ever seen anyone as good as Lanny Davis at looking you straight in the eye and telling you a whopper. And the next time you see him it's the same look and the same whopper. He's a true pro.
That said, I think the Clinton/Matthews thing goes back as far as Monicagate. I can recall actually waiting for Matthews to come on and stick it in Bill's face (no pun intended). It's nothing new for Matthews to be on the opposite side of the Clintons. The new wrinkle is the apoplectic fervor.
Noel,Once the primaries are
May 9, 2008 - 11:16 ET by Chris NormanNoel,
Once the primaries are over and every Democrat rallies around Obama, the presumable nominee (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), will the Clintonistas continue their bitterness towards MSNBC, etc. or will all be forgiven and forgotten as the network attack machine turn their sights towards McCain and the GOP? I know that the Clintons have long memories but the old saw of the enemy of my enemy is my friend could apply, too.
The Clintonistas will enter
May 9, 2008 - 11:20 ET by NL207The Clintonistas will enter stealth mode to defeat Obama. Hillary does not ever become President if Obama wins. That is still her goal. An Obama win completely obstructs that. A McCain win gives her another shot in 2012.
I think you're probably
May 9, 2008 - 11:42 ET by Chris NormanI think you're probably right in this. However, the media won't help the Clintons in this effort.
No, but the 527's sure
May 9, 2008 - 12:42 ET by NL207No, but the 527's sure will. As an added bonus, the Clintonistas get to blame the "evil swift-boating" that will ensue on the Republicans.
I doubt there will be any
May 9, 2008 - 11:24 ET by JerI doubt there will be any tearful reconciliation between the Clintons and Chris. As CaringWhiteGuy correctly notes above, the animosity between the Matthews and Clinton camps has been brewing for at least a decade.
Jer
I'm familiar with the
May 9, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Chris NormanI'm familiar with the antagonistic relationship between Matthews and the Clintons. My question was broader - as many network (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) reporters, anchors, and hosts have shown a preference (to varying degrees) for Obama over Clinton. A preference you might not see (or acknowledge) but I'm sure the Clintons and others do.
On the contrary, I both see
May 9, 2008 - 12:19 ET by JerOn the contrary, I both see and readily acknowledge the Obama over Clinton preference. Where you and others will certainly disagree with me is with my oft-stated contention that the media have never had any particular affinity for the Clintons. [They did treat them better for awhile after Clintom left office.]
Jer
While I see your point here.
May 9, 2008 - 12:31 ET by harqmanWhile I see your point here. The MSM was never and has not until recent weeks, treated the Clintons close to the way they have treated Bush and Repubs. Had they treated Billy the way they have treated Bush, Bill would have been gone before the stain dried. While Bill took a beating, the media changed course when it looked like he might get tossed. So they turned on Star. And we were off and running.
Oh, to be sure, I strongly
May 9, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Chris NormanOh, to be sure, I strongly disagree with your contention. Would you agree that the media overtly showing a preference or a hostility towards any poltician is inappropriate?
overtly is not even the
May 9, 2008 - 12:42 ET by harqmanovertly is not even the issue. All they are suppose to do is report what happened. Not the ongoing blathering about what will they do next and all the crap that goes with it.
The news should be. "Hillary won Indiana, Barry won NC. The delegate count is......! In other news....."
That is it. But it goes on and on and on. Saying nothing.
In a perfect world, I'd
May 9, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Chris NormanIn a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we can't expect the media to give up "analysis". I'd settle for analysis not being used as a mask for cheerleading for Democrats.
media preference inappropriate?
May 9, 2008 - 13:26 ET by JerPartly...inappropriate for straight news media...less so for opinion pundits.
Jer
Oh, pundits can opine away
May 9, 2008 - 19:27 ET by Chris NormanOh, pundits can opine away for who ever they favor - as long as they don't distort the factual part of their analysis to serve their favored candidate - something that Matthews and Olbermann skate pretty close to doing if not actually doing it. I meant "straight news" reporters and anchors.
Understand and agree.
May 9, 2008 - 20:42 ET by JerUnderstand and agree.
Jer
Correct Analysis
May 9, 2008 - 11:39 ET by DocNL207,
Succinct & absolutely correct.
The only way the Clintons
May 9, 2008 - 11:47 ET by harqmanThe only way the Clintons make nice with Matthews will be use him. As he will try to be nice, as not to end up in a park, they will use him in the stealth attacks on Obama. And if Obama wins, they will be there smiling while they rip Obama to shreds. But Matthews has to know that he should not fly anywhere, or walk in a park alone. As for Keith, he will disappear off msnbc after the election. Even the whack dems are getting tired of him I think. He just has not been on the political side long enough for him to be the complete political whackjob that he is.
I can not wait until tonight to see how they both address this. Will he be the worst person in the world? I doubt it.
Should be interesting what
May 9, 2008 - 12:16 ET by mikejShould be interesting what Media Matters take is on this since it is a Hillary funded group yet they are so fond of Olbermann who will need surgery to remove his lips from Obama's backside after the election.
Hey Lanny... Newsbusters has
May 9, 2008 - 13:27 ET by Tim the EnchanterHey Lanny... Newsbusters has been pointing this stuff out for how long? Years? And you're just figuring it out now? Glad you're not my lawyer!
I happen to be watching
May 9, 2008 - 13:44 ET by harqmanI happen to be watching Andrea Mitchell right now. I think the biggest problem is these people move from opinion person to Serious news journalist on the same network in the same day. Rather then being just a reporter, they are asked their opinion on opinion shows but try to pretend they can be an unbiased reporter later on in the day. They are all the same voices with different heads. They just say the same thing or leave out the same thing.
And it is only now the folks like Lanny are seeing it all for what it has been for so long. And when the nomination is set and done, they will forget about the bias of the media. And all of us who question the media are just haters.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!
they say PMSNBC is biased
May 9, 2008 - 16:03 ET by jimmyfungusI do believe that the good folks at MSNBC have been making it clear for sometime that they plan to be the lefty flipside to FOX News, so this shouldn't be too surprising. Now, why did they pick Obama over Hillary?.... The Clintons actually seek to be centrists...in other words they are basicly slightly left of moderate Republicans. Hillary by positioning herself in the center forfeited the support of the moveon.org's and the "PMSNBC'S" of the world.
______________________________________
political food at it's tastiest *burp*, eat it up!:
http://spiritual-political-self-help.blogspot.com/
winning horse
May 9, 2008 - 23:27 ET by Jerry MackAs soon as it looked like BHO was going to be the winning horse, Msnbs jumped onto his band wagon. They calculated since he had more voters it would mean more viewers. Too them a lib is a lib.
Bias may be an addiction.
May 10, 2008 - 10:24 ET by needleMatthews to Davis at a reception: “I’m going to be better.” But Davis says that he isn’t sure Matthews meant it. “Do I think he is shamelessly biased and doesn’t care about being biased? Absolutely. Even after he admits to wanting to be better, he doesn’t do better.”
If you ever wondered if Bias is an addiction, here is something to consider. The above sounds all too similar to the prattle of a completely addicted alcoholic. “I am in full control here. I am going to put the bottle away for good after this weekend…” Yet week after week it is the same story.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.