This was definitely a hit piece and was not an offense that you should lose your job over. Yes he was wrong but if she can't do her job because of those comments she needs to look in the mirror. I am getting pretty tired of hearing how brave these people are for coming out when the only reason she did this was because of a Warren interview. People loved Mathews and this will not end well for her IMO. Cancel culture gonna cancel.
speculation that there's more to the story: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/03/why-did-msnbc-sack-chris-matthews.php Why did MSNBC sack Chris Matthews? by Paul Mirengoff March 4, 2020 Earlier this week, Chris Matthews announced on his MSNBC show “Hardball” that he was quitting. He then walked off the set. Later, we learned that the network forced him to resign. Why? One explanation is that Matthews made female guests on his show and some female employees “uncomfortable” with sex-charged banter. But reportedly, Matthews has been doing this forever. It’s true that an obscure journalist recently called Matthews out for his comments in an article for GQ. “Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?” is an example. But these types of remark, though boorish, aren’t the stuff of firings. Surely, there is more to Matthews’s discharge than this. The “more,” I think, is the fact that Matthews offended supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Barack Obama may have sent a thrill up Matthews’s leg, but the two elderly far leftists running this year don’t. Matthews, I gather, is something of a traditional liberal, and thus at odds with MSNBC’s core viewership. Matthews got on the wrong side of Warren’s supporters by daring to inquire of her why she believes the allegation that Michael Bloomberg said to a pregnant woman “kill it,” meaning the unborn baby. He asked Warren: Do you really think Bloomberg is lying? Why would he do such a thing? The best Warren could do was to say that she believes the accuser and that pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is a real thing. Yes, it is at some workplaces. But a federal court found that there was no systemic pregnancy discrimination at Bloomberg’s company. If Warren knew the facts better, she might have pointed out that a male Bloomberg employee has said he overheard the conversation in question, that Bloomberg’s behavior was “outrageous,” and that he understood why the pregnant female took offense. However, I have seen no reporting that this employee heard Bloomberg say “kill it.” And who knows what this particular guy considers “outrageous”? Thus, the woman’s “kill it” allegation remains a case of “she said, he said,” and it was perfectly reasonable for Matthews to press Warren as to why she believes Bloomberg’s accuser. In the case of Sanders, Matthews compared the Vermont socialist’s victory in Nevada to the Nazi invasion of France. No reasonable person would think that Matthews was calling Sanders a Nazi. He must have had in mind that Sanders “blitzed” Nevada, figuratively. Nonetheless, the reference to Nazis was certainly inappropriate. It required an apology, which Matthews delivered. But let’s not pretend that references to Nazis, even when they are meant to suggest that someone is Nazi-like, are firing offenses for commentators at leftist media outlets like MSNBC. They are only firing offenses if directed at leftists. If directed President Trump’s way, there’s no problem. Matthews’s offense wasn’t what he said. It was the person he said it about. I won’t miss Chris Matthews. I liked his show when it first aired all those years ago, but eventually grew tired of the blustery host. It’s been at least ten years since I watched “Hardball.” It’s important, however, to understand why Matthews was let go. I’m pretty sure he was let go because aspects of his politics and his taste in politicians aren’t sufficiently in tune with those of the hard left.
I think it was mostly about his anti Bernie emotions that he was letting impact the quality of the program, and wasn’t really adding perspective as to why was Bernie a front runner rather than just freaking out about Bernie for 46 minutes a night. Even anti Trump rants should add some value to the viewers. You should also understand who your viewers are. In this case on MSNBC most of the viewers at this pivotal time were grasping with the thought of either moving their support to Bernie or dealing with him as the nominee that they want to be okay supporting. Nobody watching wanted anti Bernie bashing with hyperbole about communism, Nazis, and Castro. He was adding no value to our time and wasn’t giving the voters any perspective on what matter or will matter in politics leading up to November.
That was a very painful interview to watch. The host kept interrupting Matthews. I can not see how this BP pod/show has an audience.
Matthews doesn’t have a regular show but he still shows up on Morning Joe and other shows as a guest commentator.
She does interrupt, but he also kept bringing her back into things when she was trying to move on. I'm not sure why he kept doing that, but again I think he was just tired and frustrated as the interview went out. Anyway, I think BP has a decent sized audience. Bigger than most cable news shows (though that's not saying much). I am a regular watcher. And while I don't love Krystal as an interviewer, and I don't think she views herself as some great interviewer, I get more from their interviews than most other political interviewers.
Women wanted to be treated like equals, now that they are, they don't like the way they are treated. As the world turns. DD
Except they still aren't treated as equals. Male politicians who act out or don't understand their job are given a pass, but female politicians who are like that are called emotional bit ches, or slept their way to the top or only got their position because of some sort of affirmative action program.
There is still work to do for sure, was merely noticing a trend. Not sure what to think about it really, I can see folks saying...you wanted in the locker room, now you b**** about being in the locker room vs. equal means getting treated equally in all circumstances....which as you pointed out they are not. And in Mathews case, what once was considered a compliment is now considered to be misogynistic DD
