he is an establishment democrat...hardly a leftie icon. i didnt like him b/c he didnt really cover "news" as much as "politics". he was obsessed with treating politics like a team sport. what i dont like about mainstream cable news is that its just espn for people that dont like sports and he was the prime example of that.
CNN and MSNBC coverage of our electoral process is 90% political intrigue and 10% having an actual discussion of the issues.
So do you love Nicole Wallace the journalist or Nicole Wallace the lady.... I'm thinking it's the lady... T_Man
I mean it isn't some sexual attraction if that's what you are asking haha. I love everything about her on tv. I love her show, I love her "wtf did you just say?" look, I love her analysis, I love her classiness, I love when she wears her glasses and looks at some idiot over the brim of them...I think she is a tremendous asset to news coverage and I watch MSNBC entirely because of her.
I feel the same way about Brooke Baldwin.... Also a big fan of Dana Bash and Nia-Malika Henderson For the men I like John King and Chris Wallace.. Those 2 guys bring the reporting with no bias to the Left or to the Right (as it should be). T_Man
I like Chris Wallace a lot. I like Dana Bash and Nia Malika Henderson as well. I'm indifferent on Brooke Baldwin as I haven't really watched her show, just clips that have gone viral. Not enough to judge. John King...I don't know, something about him annoys me. I don't know why.
If say a ton of sh*t, some of it is going to be dumb. Not necessarily Trump dumb, but dumb nonetheless.
Not true, particularly CNN. Show me legitimate surveys with percentages to back up your claim, please.
Exactly and it's not a good look for people to be celebrating this. He has been slipping lately and showing his age so I think it was time.
I think it was obvious that it was my general estimation from my time watching CNN. Probably shouldn't have placed a actual ratio. It's just the ratio I percieve. I understand that and I understand you might have a different perception for various reasons such as maybe you watch different time slots than me. Who knows. The vast majority of the discussion is about the intrigue. It's about what candidate can get the black vote or the never-Trumper conservative vote. The part where they actually discuss the policies that would make people have those decisions is only a small part. This it's basically a self fulfilling feed back loop of CNN or MSNBC say 'so and so candidate is not popular with the black vote" and people believe what they hear and that premise is now in their head and they vote according to that premise. The actual discussion of the policy isn't brought up nearly as much. The only time that really happens is when a guest who's stumping for a candidate explains because they have insentive to change the narrative" of what CNN polling gave and to do that you have to be nuanced. But when it comes to those round tables of CNN pundits, it's almost about the intrigue.
I think there are varying levels of dumb. Some of the stuff he said was definitely past the "he's out there a lot, some of it might be dumb" stage.
Political columnist accuses MSNBC host Chris Matthews of making suggestive comments to her before she went on his show Sonam Sheth Feb 28, 2020, Freelance political reporter Laura Bassett accused MSNBC's Chris Matthews of making suggestive comments and inappropriately flirting with her at least twice before she went on his show. On one occasion, Bassett wrote in GQ Magazine, Matthews turned to her while they were in the makeup room and asked, "Why haven't I fallen in love with you yet?" Bassett wrote that when she went on camera with him a few minutes later, she stumbled over her words and forgot "basic vocabulary" because she was so uncomfortable with what had transpired. On another occasion, Bassett alleges that Matthews was "bolder" and stood between her and a mirror and asked her if she was going out that night. "Make sure you wipe this off her face after the show," he allegedly told the makeup artist. "We don't make her up so some guy at a bar can look at her like this." Bassett first detailed the encounters in 2017 but didn't identify Matthews by name out of fear of retaliation.
Like Warren, I Had My Own Sexist Run-In with Chris Matthews The Hardball anchor frequently demeans women guests with objectifying and belittling comments, both on and off air. BY LAURA BASSETT February 28, 2020 MSNBC host Chris Matthews, whose long history of sexist comments and behavior have somehow not yet gotten him fired, tested the boundaries of his own misogyny again on Wednesday night. After the tenth Democratic presidential debate, the Hardball anchor grilled Elizabeth Warren about one of her lines of attack against Mike Bloomberg during the debate: that a pregnant female employee accused Bloomberg of telling her to “kill it.” “You believe he’s lying?” Matthews asked Warren of Bloomberg's denial. “I believe the woman, which means he’s not telling the truth,” said Warren, who recently had to defend her own credible story of pregnancy discrimination. “And why would he lie?” Matthews said. “Just to protect himself?” “Yeah, and why would she lie?” Warren responded pointedly. “I just wanna make sure you’re clear about this,” Matthews said. Right there on America’s purportedly liberal network, the anchor spoke to a 70-year-old United States senator who is running for president—and a renowned Harvard Law professor, no less—like she couldn’t possibly understand her own words, as if she were a child choosing between a snack now or dessert later. The allegation that Matthews, a veteran journalist, was trying so hard to undermine was actually corroborated by a third party to The Washington Post earlier this month. There was no reason for him to harp on its veracity, except, perhaps, that he himself has made so many sexist comments over the years that he has a vested interest in Bloomberg being let off the hook. Some of Matthews’s behavior has already been well-documented. Like Bloomberg, who frequently remarked “nice t***” and “I’d do her” at the office, Matthews has a pattern of making comments about women’s appearances in demeaning ways. The number of on-air incidents is long, exhausting, and creepy, including commenting to Erin Burnett, for example, “You’re a knockout...it’s all right getting bad news from you,” while telling her to move closer to the camera. Behind the scenes, one of Matthews’s former producers told The Daily Caller in 2017 that he allegedly rated his female guests on a numerical scale and would name a “hottest of the week,” like a “teenage boy.” In 1999, an assistant producer accused Matthews of sexual harassment, which CNBC, the show's network at the time, investigated. They concluded that the comments were "inappropriate," and Matthews received a “stern reprimand,” according to an MSNBC spokesperson. This tendency to objectify women in his orbit has bled into his treatment of female politicians and candidates. He has repeatedly lusted over women in politics on air, including remarking in 2011 that there’s “something electric” and “very attractive” about the way former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin walks and moves, and noting in 2017 that acting attorney general Sally Yates is “attractive, obviously.” But he has reserved a particular contempt for the woman who made it closest to ascending the heights of American political power—Hillary Clinton—calling her “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “She-Devil.” The Cut obtained footage of him joking in early 2016, just before a live interview with then candidate Clinton, “where’s that Bill Cosby pill,” referring to the date-rape drug. In 2005, he openly wondered whether the troops would “take the orders” from a female president; after another interview, he pinched Clinton’s cheek; and in another, he suggested that she had only had so much political success because her husband had “messed around.” This evening anchor, in addition to everything else, has repeatedly challenged whether women are legitimate politicians or could be president at all. "I was thinking how hard it is for a woman to take on a job that's always been held by men," he said of Clinton in 2006. Then there is the open secret of Matthews’s everyday behavior off camera with guests, which often creeps up to the line of sexual harassment without actually crossing it, so that women can never feel that it’s worth jeopardizing their own careers to complain. Many women in politics or media who have interacted with the bombastic host have some kind of story about him making them feel uncomfortable on the job. I have my own. In 2017, I wrote a personal essay about a much older, married cable-news host who inappropriately flirted with me in the makeup room a few times before we went live on his show, making me noticeably uncomfortable on air. I was afraid to name him at the time for fear of retaliation from the network; I’m not anymore. It was Chris Matthews. In 2016, right before I had to go on his show and talk about sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump, Matthews looked over at me in the makeup chair next to him and said, “Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?” When I laughed nervously and said nothing, he followed up to the makeup artist. “Keep putting makeup on her, I’ll fall in love with her.” Another time, he stood between me and the mirror and complimented the red dress I was wearing for the segment. “You going out tonight?” he asked. I said I didn’t know, and he said—again to the makeup artist—“Make sure you wipe this off her face after the show. We don’t make her up so some guy at a bar can look at her like this.” Again—Matthews was never my boss. I’m pretty sure that behavior doesn’t rise to the level of illegal sexual harassment. But it undermined my ability to do my job well. And after I published a story about it, even though I didn’t name him, dozens of people reached out to say they knew exactly who it was. Many had similar stories. A fellow cable-news pundit, who doesn’t want to be named for professional reasons, said Matthews invited her on to talk about misogyny in the Republican Party, telling her that he planned to draw a comparison to the ’60s ad-men show Mad Men. Right before going on air, he turned to her and asked “whether Joan’s proportions are real,” referring to the body of a curvy character on the show, before seamlessly transitioning into a supposedly feminist segment. She was shaken, like I was. (At the time of publication, MSNBC had not yet responded to GQ with comment on either incident.) In fact, Matthews’s whole modus operandi seems to be inviting smart women onto his show, flirting with them or otherwise making them uncomfortable before or while the camera rolls, asking them a question on air and then immediately interrupting them to tell them why they’re wrong. He repeated this playbook with Warren this week. The fact that this kind of behavior has not lost him his primetime cable-news show in the year 2020—even aside from his egregious “Bill Cosby pill” joke and the sexual-harassment allegation against him—speaks to how far the #MeToo movement still has to go to change the standards for what kind of attitudes toward women in the workplace are acceptable and even rewarded. There is a worthy journalistic line of inquiry Matthews could take about nondisclosure agreements and the role they play in muzzling women and upholding abusive power structures. Instead of exploring that, Matthews attacked Warren's clarity on whether she believes another woman’s corroborated testimony. He seems constitutionally incapable of probing these hyper-relevant topics with anything approaching intellectual curiosity or open-mindedness. In that way, he's also unfit for his job. Beyond the question of Matthews’s employment, there is the decision of keeping a man with this flagrant bias as the anchor of a major cable-news evening show. His position affords him the ability to affect public opinion, both sweeping away documented behavior of male presidential candidates and casting doubt on corroborated women’s accusations against those men. Having a news anchor who calls women “she-devil” and treats their assessments with infantilizing suspicion while conducting post-debate interviews builds in a major disadvantage for female candidates. And that’s downright irresponsible.
