OxBlog

Thursday, February 02, 2006

# Posted 7:15 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CHRIS MATTHEWS IS EVIL! No, it isn't just Tim Russert. Along side Open Letter to Tim Russert, there is also Open Letter to Chris Matthews, a blog that assails the Hardballer for a shameless pandering to the conservatives in power.

I think the Matthews blog is far more entertaining than the Russert one. Relatively speaking, Russert isn't all that confrontational. If you try hard, you can accuse him of going soft on guests from either side of the political spectrum.

But Chris Matthews? Over the past few months, I've listened to dozens and dozens of Hardball podcasts. [NB: Each one is only a 5-10 minute clip, not a whole show.] Let's just say the man doesn't hide his opinions very well.

The problem though, is that on those occasions when Matthews actually does give a liberal a hard time, he tends to borrow enough GOP buzzwords to make him sound like he may actually believe what he's saying.

Consider Matthews' recent interview with LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Part of their discussion was about GOP efforts to court Hispanic voters, so they don't become another solid Democratic bloc, like African-Americans. In doing so, Matthews threw the standard GOP argument on the subject at Villaraigosa, but sort of made it sound like it was his own opinion:
MATTHEWS: ...Puerto Ricans come to this country to start businesses. Cubans certainly come here to start businesses. The hardest working people in the United States are people who just got here from Mexico-the first day they get here. Everybody knows they don't want a big social democracy. They want free enterprise and entrepreneurialism don't they?

MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA: I think what they want-

MATTHEWS: They sound like they are natural Republicans to me.
Both Open Letter and Crooks & Liars blasted Matthews for the "natural Republicans" remark. How dare he insist that hard work and free enterprise are Republican values!

No, of course they aren't. But which party has more positive things to say about business? And which party constantly emphasizes the shortcomings of the marketplace?

Anyhow, this kind of debate about the vice and virtue of Matthews and Russert won't pivot on contending interpretations of ambiguous remarks like the ones above. If one side is going to win, it will have to systematically catalogue one-sided statements and demonstrate that Matthews or Russert consistently lean one way.

The problem is, critics from both sides tend to pick out the exchanges they are unhappy with and ignore all those that might provoke the other side of the political spectrum. In fact, how often do media critics (myself included) even notice those exchanges to which the other side might object?

Then again, talent always seems to emerge in the blogosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if a centrist credible to both sides eventually set up a site that kept tabs on Matthews, Russert, et al. Now that would be interesting.
(9) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:
I feel no hostility towards Mr. Matthews in this context, and I'm in favor of increased legal immigration from Mexico into the United States. However, a belief in hard work does not necessarily prevent a belief in "social democracy". I believe that on average, immigrants from Mexico are more likely than U.S.-born Americans to favor the concept that the goverment should use its powers to help reduce income inequality.
 
A couple of years ago A Tribe Called Quest came out with a song called "phony rappers". I thought great Q-tip is going to lambaste the garbage that passes for mainstream rap these days (this was the mid 90s, a rough patch). instead he uses his verse to castigate an upstart who deigned to battle him on the subway. Why would somebody with some power (like q-tip) waste their time putting down someone who was so clearly beneath them for an affront that was so clearly insignificant when there are much bigger fish out there much more deserving of the verbal beatdown.

oxblog's latest obsession (tiny liberal media bashing sites) reminds me of that.

Why waste time on the microphone?
 
Point taken, stress. But even if the Open Letters are a bit obscure, they are part of the "Marshall plan" described in my previous post.

Also, I have to take any comparison to the Tribe as a compliment.
 
Saying that Ted Kennedy molested Samuel Alito's wife is a tad beyond using GOP buzzwords.

Media Matters has the transcript.

I agree with you about the anecdotal approach to media criticism, though your sweeping "they're liberal because I say so" isn't much more convincing. But responding to egregious examples--on both sides--helps force media personalities to strive to play fair.
 
But which party has more positive things to say about business? And which party constantly emphasizes the shortcomings of the marketplace?

Total strawman, David. The Democratic Party has always been the party of "equality of opportunity". Conservatives may that that Democrats focus too much on the "equality" side, but the general public certainly associates the Democratic Party with the notion of "helping Americans to achieve the American dream" more than the Republican Party, if polls are any indication. And yes, both parties claim that their policies help Americans achieve the American dream, and both parties believe in capitalism as the vital organ to achieving the American dream. The difference is the general public sees the Republican Party as beholden to large corporations who would stand in the way of small businessmen from achieving the American dream, and the Democratic Party as supportive of small businesses and wage earners who struggle to achieve the American dream. Matthews' point was a pure GOP talking point. It would be like saying to a Republican, "It makes perfect sense why Republicans have no support among black people considering all the racists in your party like Trent Lott."
 
Strawman? Listen to Barack Obama's most recent podcast, where he explains his opposition to Alito. Obama is supposed to be the sort of new Democrat who goes beyond all the cliches, but even he winds up saying that the problem with Alito is that he always sides with the powerful against the powerless, including with employers against employees.

That is exactly the kind of rhetoric that may lead businessmen -- even small businessmen -- to wonder which party understands their interest, let alone represents them.
 
The problem is, critics from both sides tend to pick out the exchanges they are unhappy with and ignore all those that might provoke the other side of the political spectrum. In fact, how often do media critics (myself included) even notice those exchanges to which the other side might object?

You're just playing the false equivalence card. Oh both sides are mad therefore let's just split the difference. Matthews made his career bashing Clinton, and he has never called the right-wing a bunch of wackjobs. Matthews panders to conventional wisdom, which is currently right-leaning. Would he parrot left-leaning talking points if that advanced his career? Possibly. But that's kind of the point; he portrays himself as a neutral journalist, and that isn't journalism.
 
The Democratic Party has always been the party of "equality of opportunity". Is ANY history taught any more? A few names: Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright, Bull Connor, George Wallace - Democrats and outright racists, one of whom is still in the Senate, as a Dem. And I've left out thousands.
 
Are there conservatives somewhere complaining about how Matthews regurgitates Democratic talking points and in general leans to the left? That would be news to me.
 
Post a Comment


Home