Matthews: My 'Job' to help Obama presidency

[AllHereTruth]

Run time: 01:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7NJWW-n1Y   Posted on YouTube: November 06, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 07, 2008 By DU Member: AllHereTruth Views on DU: 2293

 
This is why we need REFORM in journalism.

It starts with Fox News. But in all fairness Matthews just sank a stake in his heart with this one...at least for me.

I have lost all respect for this man. He is a National News Anchor. It is his job to report the news. Not to make one mans presidency 'successful'. If Bill O'Reilly had said this after a McCain victory we would ALL be up in arms...Why not the same for Matthews? Why not the EXACT same treatment from DU?

For Shame Matthews.

Rec this if you believe Matthews went too far as a 'journalist'

[dennis4868]

1. IT'S ALL AMERICANS...

job to make this presidency a successful one, no matter if you are a repub, dem, or in the MSM....this country is in deep shit and we all need to pitch in to make things better....Mathews only wants this presidency to be successful because if it is we all WIN!

[AllHereTruth]

4. I agree with your sentiment

But disagree that it is a journalists place to stand on a pulpit, and declare he is going to do everything to make one mans presidency successful.

If he says it to his friends and family, good for him.
If he says it to people on the street, good for him.
If he declares, on National Mainstream News, that he will make Obama's presidency a successful one, then FOR SHAME.

Again, if O'Reilly had done this WE WOULD BE CALLING FOR HIS HEAD. - That is a fact.

[psychopomp]

12. Is he a journalist?

Or, is he a kind of media creation that fuses journalism with ...something else? I think of all of these talking heads as entertainers. Greg Palast, now there is a journalist. As long as Mr. Mathews makes his mind up to do the job as he sees fit, let him have at it. He is right this time.

Media types need to be understood for what they are. Do not look to them for the truth, but along the way truth might find its way into the conversation.

BTW, I do not know how you could have missed it, but Orally does that every day.

[lamp_shade]

15. No. He's a "political commentator".

[dennis4868]

18. he's not a journalist...

these people are entertainers...

[tomp]

25. define successful.

whatever obama wants or what is right? who decides what is "good for america"?

frankly, though I'm not an obama fan, I think even he would disagree with mathews' position.

[lamp_shade]

2. For starters... Chris is NOT a reporter. He's a commentator.

[AllHereTruth]

5. Ok, so hes a commentator.

So then is everyone else on MSNBC, FOX, CNN. Right?

Im not saying Matthews does not have a RIGHT to stand up and declare his support for Obama, this is America, but to say he will do everything he can to make his presidency a successful one is going way too far. Remember he is on a pulpit. People listen to him. He has a RIGHT to report the NEWS. Not make one man successful.

Isnt that what WE AT DU have been SCREAMING about for the last 8 years regarding FOX NEWS. Think about that one. Let that sink in.

Whats the difference in this situation???

[AllHereTruth]

6. I seem to remember watching a film...

that showed Fox News and their blatant bias towards one administration.

I was appalled. I was sickened. As were all of you.

Now this. From the Left. Whats the difference i ask you?

[Liberalatus]

23. The difference is

He said this country needs a successful President. He didn't say Obama needs to be successful. He is supporting our president, as he is, because right now is not the time to start splitting this country apart again, which is exactly what Joe is attempting to do. You act like people started heavily criticizing Bush, like they do now, right out of the gates. Bush earned every single bit of criticism he gets. But Matthews is going to start doing the right thing, which means doing real reporting and commentating, rather than just taking pot-shots and nit-picking and tearing Obama down at every chance he gets, right from the start. If Obama EARNS it, and does horribly, Chris will do his job and report it. But right now, there are a number of people in the MSM who are already gearing up to take Obama down with every negative angle they can. Obviously, Matthews doesn't want to take this route. He is giving Obama a fair chance. That is good commentary. This is the exact OPPOSITE of what you see at Fox, where their agenda, plain and simple, is to take down Democrats, further the Conservative agenda, and continue as a Propaganda machine for the Right. To compare the two is really so far a stretch, it almost like you are just looking for any way to criticize that you can, baseless or not.

[thesquanderer]

13. Commentator or journalist?

That's a good question. Is Chris Matthews a commentator, like someone on the McLaughlin Group, who is supposed to offer opinions? Or is he a journalist more like a Tim Russert who is at least supposedly *trying* to be objective?

Is the goal truth or is it advocacy? Overall, the job of the press is to keep an eye on those in power, not to be cheerleaders.

The fact that 90% of the press slanted their reporting toward Bush after 9/11 is largely what led us to the Iraq war disaster. The New York Times et al largely became cheerleaders for the Bush administration rather than the check on it that the press should be. Maybe they did it out of a misplaced sense of patriotism. Maybe they did it because they wouldn't have sold papers otherwise.

In the long term, the country is the loser if the press becomes unconditionally supportive of one side or the other. Especially since so many people believe and expect that the American press aims to be objective. At least most Russians *knew* that Pravda was BS.

[lamp_shade]

16. He's a "political commentator".

[thesquanderer]

33. good point

Okay, if he presents himself as an opinion-offering commentator rather than a journalist/reporter then he's legitimately entitled to be slanted.

(I have to admit, I don't know much about him, I hardly see any TV.)

[HereSince1628]

3. News? Surely you jest. The politics shows are ENTERTAINMENT

The MSNBC formula for their political entertainment programs is to represent the left and the right (unlike CNN that tries to deal with the libertarian view as well). The tension that makes political entertainment watchable is a result of OPPOSITION to the left and right. As the Dems go forward as the party in control, MSNBC will place more right-leaning shows into prime time. Mika and Scarborough are showing up more and more in the evening just for that reason.

[Sukie]

7. I applaud Chris Matthews for not wanting to put conjecture

into the reasons that Obama chose Emanuel for the job of Chief of Staff. There was no "news" that Joe wanted Chris to report. It was speculation that Joe wanted Chris to partake in. I will bookmark this because I think Chris did the RIGHT thing.

[AllHereTruth]

8. It just snowed here...not a happy morning :(

So maybe i got a bit heated...or cold

but that being said i still think we need reform in journalism.

[silex]

20. Agreed

He talked about it on his own show with all of the problems with economy,wars,etc.. we all need to support the new president as they make a smooth transition and there will be plenty of time later to disagree w/policy.This came up when a republican complained about the the chief of staff pick.

[Best_man23]

9. Perhaps Matthews "help" to make the Obama presidency succeed

Will be to NOT feed into the propaganda that the RW Noise Machine is no doubt working on as we speak. During the 90s, the media was all-too complicit in the war waged by the Right to smear Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2002-2003, the media joined the Bush administration and the Right in beating the drums of war in the run-up to Iraq.

His statement here may be nothing more than a decision to not simply report whatever crosses his desk, to only report newsworthy stories. I can buy into this, as this is what ALL journalists/commentators should be doing.

If he has decided he's going to be a parrot for the left (and an Obama administration) then that is no good. I want objectivity from the media (this includes Chris Matthews).

Chris Matthews' mistake was voicing his intent. Sometimes, one's intent is better left unsaid.

[ananda]

10. WRONG.

The job of the press is to investigate and
report truth and facts objectively.

Sue

[BigD_95]

14. well that was

what he was saying.

[lamp_shade]

19. He's not a member of the press nor is he an investigative reporter. He's a "political commentator".

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. Matthews Is Running For Senate

I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious.

[Phred42]

26. Yep - It's been talked about and he wants to beat Dobbs to the punch

Who is also talking about it.

After acting like a hard nippled High school cheerleader in 2000 and 2004 for Bush "wouldn't he be great to have a beer with"

and after Mission Accomplished "we're All NEOCONs Now!"

I don't trust Tweety. He's shot his bolt. I don't even watch him anymore (for several years now).

The guy goes where ever the power and money is. PHuck him

[tblue37]

17. I am quite sure that if Hillary were the president-elect, he would be doing

his best to make sure her presidency failed.

I am an Obama supporter, but this remark appalled me, too. Tweety is all about man-crushes, and he is the one who openly admitted that the press, including himself, were McCain's base. Sure, McCain's nastiness to the press eventually turned them away from him to some degree, but one reason he got away with as much as he did was that Matthews and other so-called journalists felt it was their job to make sure McCain succeeded in his candidacy.

[aintitfunny]

21. He would be saying the same thing if McCain had won

He said it was his job to make this a successful presidency. So, no, I don't think he went too far, though I think it is odd, but figure he is feeling the need to aid his country it it's time of need.

[lostnfound]

22. He looks exhausted, like he hasn't slept. nt

[yodermon]

24. Matthews is running for Senate in 2010. go fig. n/t

[donco]

27. Press secretary’s job? nt

[nichomachus]

28. I would rather he said that his job

was to help the country and the people -- and to hold all politicians, including Obama, accountable to that end.

[AllHereTruth]

37. Thank you

You can support a president, but to single him out, is what was wrong here.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Matthews is not a journalist. he is an analyst, a commentator, a provocateur, ......

..... but he is not a journalist.

If he were a journalist, you wouldn't know his view on anything.

[The Brethren]

30. I don't consider him a journalist

but he went too far. It isn't that I mind balancing Fox's overt support for the GOP through their news channel. It's that Chris made his comments too personal for his "job". And what will he say to his viewers if there any problems with Obama or his admin. while in office? Will it be his job to overlook these problems or to be honest about them? And no matter how good Obama maybe, there still needs to be room for criticism and honest discussion about our government even if a commentator or news anchor favors that person.

I'm a dem and am praying that Obama and Biden do outstanding jobs while in office. However, I still do not want watered down or tinted information from MSN, or anyone else, on what is happening with our government. Which is one of the reasons I can't stand FOX -- they're not only completely biased for the repugs, they're also an insult to my intelligence as a viewer. They're nothing more then a GOP info. commercial with talking, rotating heads.

[smiley_glad_hands]

31. Wow. When did he become a journalist? But its ok if hannity and o'reilly do it though? eom

[1776Forever]

32. Chris went too far? What about this from Rush? This is TOO FAR!

Yesterday Randi Rhodes brought up how the "right wing talkers" are going way over the top with their hateful talk and no one is bringing this up on Morning Joe or other MSM shows. Why not? This is really begging comment! There is way too much of this hate filled talk going on and it is dangerous!

From Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

The Rahm Emanuel Theory
November 6, 2008

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125109.guest.html

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me expand on my Rahm Emanuel theory, and it's fascinating the way Obama did this. Obama publicly says, "I'm going to offer the gig of chief of staff to Rahm Emanuel." Now, a lot of people don't understand why it's a big deal whoever the chief of staff is. The chief of staff sets the ideological tone in the White House. You don't get to see the president without the approval of the chief of staff. The chief of staff is who really deals with all the staff. Some of the staff will occasionally be invited into the Oval Office to share their ideas or whatever with Obama, but the chief of staff will always be in there along with the -- if there is one... Bush had a chief of staff all the time and he also had Rove in there. The chief of staff with Obama is probably going to see to it that there isn't a Rove in the Obama White House.

There will be a Rove, but he'll be in his office and he'll communicate with Obama via memo, through the chief of staff. Now, the chief of staff, this is one of the most partisan Democrats around. He is a thug Democrat. He takes no prisoners. He has no desire to get along with anybody on the other side or traitorous leftists. If he thinks liberals are traitoring him out, he'll go after them, too. That's what it is. This, by the way, argues against this whole notion that so many doofuses on our side are now saying that there's going to be a "centrist" Obama. There's no way! The appointment of Emanuel alone dispels the notion that there's anything centrist about this. But, two things. Now, some are going to disagree with me about this because Rahm Emanuel also worked in the Clinton White House, and Clinton tried to sell out Israel a number of times.

You know, Arafat was the number one guest in Clinton's White House (other than the women) and so people think, "Well, Emanuel was there, and it didn't matter. It didn't matter to Emanuel that Clinton was trying to sell out Israel." I think this is a little bit different because with Obama, let's be honest. There are a lot of people in the Muslim world who think -- and this is not me saying this. Don't associate me with this, but we know this to be true. There are a lot of Muslims around the world who believe that they finally got one of theirs in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama. They think that they've got somebody. They know he's a radical leftist, and they think he's at least sympathetic, because they, too, are downtrodden (they think) like African-Americans in this country are downtrodden.

So they think they've got a sympathetic figure, at least, in the White House. Somebody who is not going to have it in for terrorism as much as George W. Bush did. Somebody who isn't going to be as prone to use force. They think all of this. Now all of a sudden he names as his consiglieri, as his enforcer, his capo di tutti: Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel is all the other things I said, plus he's Jewish. Now, this sends a signal to the Arab world that conflicts with what they believe. They probably are going to give it some time here, but my guess is, my theory -- and I could be wrong about this, but my theory -- is that we also know in the Muslim world that... I forget the word for it. They have a word for Muslims who flee the faith and join some other religion.

Of course, they put out fatwas on them like Salman Rushdie and this sort of thing. I think it's entirely possible that when all is said and done, these people in the Islamic, Muslim world who think they've got a simpatico in the White House end up hating his guts. They're going to end up hating his guts. They're going to think that he's a sellout. They're going to think that he abandoned them. They're going to think that he somehow has sold them out. Not personally, but in their strict code of conduct with their religion and so forth. If that is the case -- and it's a big "if" and it's just my theorem. But if it's a big case, if it's true, then the Arab world might get even angrier at us than they already are. (laughing) So we shall see, ladies and gentlemen. We shall see.

[underpants]

34. Mathews knows where the wind is blowing both in DC and on MSNBC

He shouldn't have said that publicly but he is just keeping his career going

[BeliQueen]

35. First, I'm not quite sure what that video was about

because the question Matthews was asked wasn't clear.

What is clear is that Matthews isn't ready to tear down the Obama administration before it has even been formed.

When he said, 'Yeah that's my job,' that was clearly sarcastic, but his further comments show a person who wants to be good at his job and be a service to his country. To him that means not jumping to conclusions about a trumped up news story that will harm this presidency.

Good for him.

[proReality]

36. If what Matthews is saying is

that he intends to report the news factually, then I'm all for it. But if it means he's only going to tell us 'pro-Obama' news, then he's wrong.

Edited for spacing.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. I think we should all try and hope for a successful Obama presidency.

It doesn't mean we can't question or report on his wrong doings, or press his feet to the fire when we see it necessary, but every American should hope and do their best to make sure this presidency works. And you know what? I felt the same way in 2000 and 2004. I didn't want Bush to fail because I knew if he failed, we all failed.

Well he failed and look at the country because of it.

[mzmolly]

39. He did the same for Bush.

:shrug: