Howard Kurtz wrote a piece about Chris Matthews this week because of his bizarre anti-Hillary election coverage that has enraged most progressives tha
February 16, 2008

Howard Kurtz wrote a piece about Chris Matthews this week because of his bizarre anti-Hillary election coverage that has enraged most progressives that included a recap of events and quotes from Matthews, his guests and producers that are pro and con. It's the usual profile that spins it ever so favorably for a 5 million dollar a year Village Elder club member. Digby takes it apart in her usually insightful style.

"You know he's saying exactly what he thinks -- that's the whole trick. You know it's coming straight from his gut. That's what his appeal has always been."

Can someone explain to me when this became a more admirable character trait than being a decent person? I hear it all the time. "Well, he may be a racist and a child molester, but you know where he stands," as if being a straight-talking asshole somehow negates the fact that you are ... an a*&hole.

Update: When Matthews cries that the Clinton campaign goes after your kneecaps--he has an agenda to fulfill since he had to apologize for the venom that he spewed on a regular basis and he's not happy about it.

And when my pal John Aravosis endorses Tweety's positions by saying " Chris Matthews is still right"---well---I just disagree two times on that one.

Bob Somerby does a wonderful job also: "Kurtz shows the world how The Village profiles its own." As I read The Kurtzing piece, it just made me more aware of the fact that the media has been much harder on Hillary than on Obama. I guess that should have been expected since so many of today's reporters made their bones during Bill's presidency. Atrios links up a piece by John Heilemann---that discusses the surprisingly favorable coverage Obama. In response---Duncan writes:

I also think that while the press has been good to Obama, the press has been pretty damn good to every candidate with an R after their name. Obama's coverage may be strangely positive, but strangely positive for a Democrat.

I say surprisingly favorable too because he has a (D) attached to his name and as we've seen, even when McCain and Romney were calling each other liars, the MSM was virtually silent. I keep writing this point and I will continue to do so because on Howard's show today he brought up several segments about the favorable coverage for Barack---hint---hint everyone. They are laying the groundwork to do you know what. If Obama wins, I predict the gloves will come off---they will use the excuse of examining his record and McCrazy will be their anointed choice. The press will pivot and turn on him in a heartbeat. How much coverage have you seen by the media over McCain's pathetic pandering to the GOP base and his vote for torture? Kurtz did bring up this topic on Reliable Sources today. He agrees with us that the media was soft on McCain on this one.

"The New York Times" today has a story about this five days after the vote. "The Washington Post" did it yesterday. But most of the establishment media kissed it off.

Kissed it off. Do you think they would have done the same to Obama or Hillary? There would have been wall to wall coverage. (videos below the fold)

A flip flop of incredible proportions, but as the oily looking Jack Kemp told Alan Colmes. John was a POW---end of discussion--so just STFU.

COLMES: Secretary Kemp, he may have a problem with the general election. I presume you guys want to win a general election. And his appeal to independents and even some conservative Democrats is going to be hurt by the very thing he did this week, for example, when he voted against the Bill that says you use the Army field manual as a standard for interrogation techniques, even with the CIA, and he went against what he had previously said when he said the Army field manual should be the standard. And then he voted differently in the Senate this week, seemingly as a sop to the conservatives, to show that he's got these good conservative credentials. But that's going to hurt him in a general election. He went against everything he said about interrogation this week.

KEMP: Do you really -- do you really think, Alan, that John is going to have a problem with people who are worried about his heroism, his courage, his being a prisoner...

COLMES: No, that's not the issue I'm talking about.

KEMP: And his treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

COLMES: No, I'm not talking about him being a prisoner. Everybody respects what he did.

KEMP: I'm saying the American people are not going to debate the Army field manual for interrogation purposes. They're going to look at a bigger picture, Alan. And I think that's where he can reach out to independents, Reagan Democrats and men and women...

COLMES: They're going to look at whether he's consistent about the things he said and now whether or not, because he wants to gain the respect, trust, and love of the right wing of the party. Is he going to change the way he votes in the Senate and veer off the Straight Talk Express?

KEMP: I disagree with you on that. He's got enough moral power and influence with both conservatives and the middle of the spectrum to make that balance, get an equilibrium, and to reach across the aisle and even attract Democrats who might have voted for Ronnie Reagan back in the '80s.

What Kemp really is saying---do you think the Villagers will question McCain on his pro-waterboarding flip flop or any other matters of foreign policy and fighting terrorism? Let's face it, the media wants to get in there and have their say too. Just ask Mitt Romney. They hated him almost as much as the hard core conservatives hate McCain. And the CPACers were forced (because of their horrible candidates) to embrace Romney as the TRUE conservative on the campaign trail even though he once ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights and gay rights. He even committed the ultimate conservative sin. He denounced Ronald Reagan. Check out the video below.

I agree with Digby and share her view about the media attacking our candidates. It is important that we call bulls*&t whenever the media does this. If you support Obama or Hillary, it's not an excuse to turn a blind eye when either of them is unfairly attacked. Just because Matthews has no filter in his brain when he talks on teevee is no justification for his actions. Remember, he helped raise Malkin's profile when he shouted her down on Hardball after she made an outrageous claim that Kerry shot himself to get a medal in Nam. The right wingers rallied to her side. He was correct in his opinion, but his technique was so over the top know the results.

When we talk about the media I don't mean if they focus their reporting on the latest polls (which is a problem) it's when they spread the smears. The ugly hasn't begun yet for Obama in the media. and I can feel it start to gear up now. The right wing has an incredible delivery system to inject slime and false narratives into the main stream media. Drudge will post a smear, Limbaugh will pick it up instantly and talk about it incessantly--Mark Haperin will pass it around to the Villagers---FOX will do specials on it and Wolf Blitzer when interviewing---will gives us the old "some people say" or "your critics have said" routine and validate that smear. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right. Remember, this isn't about who you support for president, but a systemic sickness that infests our entire media.

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.