I saw part of Chris Matthews last night.

For the first 5 or 6 min he was trying to apologize for his stupidity. I wonder if any one got that on Utube? I would love to see the whole thing. Or if it has been on where can I find it? He is such a dope. He apologized but made it seem like everyone got it wrong. He is not the sleaze that everyone thinks he is.

of Matthews last night. Don't scare me like that!

What did he do? Can you fill me in? Thanks.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/17/tweety-apologizes-sort-of-for-outlandish-remarks-about-hillary/

All the cheapshots and slanted coverage, he says, was just his way of being "provacative" of a healthy political discussion. See, he's so coolness, he just can't be "politically correct."

As usual "I'm not PC" basically translates into "I don't have to apologize for being an asshole."

...was going on with Matthews after the debate. He couldn't get in fast enough to extol Hillary's
virtues and suggest that she won hands down, while bashing Edwards and Obama.

They all had very successful and inspiring debate performances. One could have made the case
that anyone of them "won" or did very well.

What's really sick right now, is that Matthews is using his job to say "I'm sorry" to Hillary.

He is kow towing like a bully who got his face smashed in--and now wants back in with the popular kids.

It's really so revolting and sick. Can't the man just do his job?

I've never seen a more blatant example of how ridiculous "journalism" is these days. People like
Matthews are so emotionally intertwined with the politicians that they cover. It's all about
currying favor and saying things (or not saying things) that will assure you are on the Washington
"A list"-- and invited to Kathleen and Bob Wooward's cocktail parties.

Our democracy has been destroyed by shrimp canapes and bruschetta.

There is a bit of a disparity, there. I suppose the "public life" argument could be made as a factor in mitigation.

Of course, Tweety is more willing to serve as a malleable and useful tool, whereas Imus likes to play "Fuck the Bosses" for pure sport.

Clearly, MSNBC was feeling a little bit of dissonance, since they MADE him apologize.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702828.html

Friday, January 18, 2008; Page C01

Under pressure from feminist groups and his own bosses at MSNBC, Chris Matthews apologized yesterday for remarks about Hillary Clinton that he now admits sounded "nasty."

For 10 days, the "Hardball" host had doggedly insisted he was just reciting a bit of history when he said on the air that "the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."

But protests against those and other remarks by Matthews reached a peak yesterday when the presidents of such groups as the National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority and National Women's Political Caucus sent a joint letter of complaint to NBC News President Steve Capus. .... (the whole article is worth reading)

Props to MEDIA MATTERS...this was a big "get" for them.

I have to admit, when I saw your headline, I was hoping you weren't going to start in with a sentence that read "While I was in the bathroom at the airport between flights...."

blatant sexist remarks have gone on forever. Tucker is fond of saying that

that when he sees Hillary he crosses his legs (for fear of castration)

Scarborough mentioned the apology this morning and said he is angry with management

for making Matthews apologize(freedom of speech:eyes:) and the twit Mika agreed, after stating

upfront that women may not like her for agreeing with Joe........ Ya think

There are plenty of decent journalists to fill those slots

David Shuster would be good and Rachel Maddow deserves a chance

but these nasty misogynists need to go

Imus had to be axed because EVERYONE had him tuned in. Can't be using phrases like WAR CRIMINAL when talking about our fearless leaders!!!

Fucking Scarborough OWES his job to those bastards at GE putting the screws to Imus, and not allowing him any opportunity to repent--it's ironic that he's protesting "freedom of speech" NOW!

Of course, I don't watch that twit--I listen to Imus!

Thanks for supplying the actual comments. I had just turned my TV on so I could watch the cooking shows to get ready for Keith. My tuner happened to be on MSNBC. I guess what I saw and what was said was completely different. I despise Tweety not just for what he says about Hillary but how he denigrates women in general. I don't ever listen to Scarborough and Mika is an Obama person like her father. I don't mind a difference of opinion but blatant lies make me sick.

There's only a couple of things different between Imus and Matthews -

1. The advertisers finally said no to MSNBC re Imus.
2. Imus was a sexist to MSNBC female employees - he was always that way to female guests .... and they just chuckled. We don't know if Matthews is that way to MSNBC female employees.
3. Matthews would probably never deliver a combination of racist plus sexist remarks. Or would he?

Imus was a HUGE MONEYMAKER for MSNBC. Matthews isn't.

Imus was fired based on a single comment. Matthews has been commenting for years, and they've ignored him.

Imus wouldn't say what the GE suits wanted him to say. Matthews will.

Imus called Bush a war criminal and said Cheney should be hanged. Matthews calls Bush "a great American" and lauds Cheney's political skills.

The one dust up Imus had with a female employee of any note was Contessa Brewer--and she basically told Imus to fuck himself. She walked off set and REFUSED to work with him, and ended up getting a better gig with better hours as a consequence.

Matthews made some snarky remarks about Michelle Obama--so you tell ME if he'd NEVER deliver that 'combo?'

is a more thorough list. I provided a long list of similarities on another thread last night.

However, I don't agree on two things -

"Imus was fired based on a single comment. Matthews has been commenting for years, and they've ignored him."

They finally got Imus based on a single comment, but he was getting away with it all for years, also.

"The one dust up Imus had with a female employee ..."

I watched him throw abuse at with many female employees. It was concentrated and in rotation when they tried to bring in 'professional' staff to take the news part over from Charles. It appeared that none would stay and do it. Perhaps dust-ups didn't appear on camera with all of them, but they came as if to stay, but didn't. In any case, the abuse was made a person squirm. They didn't giggle like guests who were abused. Prior to the rotation of their 'professionals, they had various females who gave some local or sports news - it wasn't always clear what their role was, but it was very clear what Imus/Bernard's role was in relation to them.

I think Matthews probably cares about his reputation, Imus didn't.

Matthews is possibly even more repulsive in his political and sexist abuse, because he is supposed to be the professional (proffessional-interruptor), not the cowboy (cowboy-attention deficit interruptor).

That's why he settled, for a big payday, that wrongful termination action against his former employers--because they PAID him specifically to be a provoking asshole. Thus, the argument that Imus wasn't sufficiently PC doesn't really work, because that was part of his job description--to be a controversial jerk. He also argued that CBS had the power to censor him, with the delay/mute button, and they failed in their duty to so do, if they thought his remarks were sufficiently egregious. MSNBC has that capability too, but they averred they weren't using it on his show (talk about stupid--or maybe...DELIBERATE?).


Background: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/05/04/imus_lawyer_bosses_couldve_cut_remarks/

NEW YORK --A lawyer for Don Imus said Friday that the former radio host's bosses could have edited the on-air comments that got him fired -- and that the fact that they didn't meant they saw his remarks as routine for his often-provocative show.

Attorney Martin Garbus told ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" that CBS Radio and MSNBC had delay buttons but didn't use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team last month.

"That means CBS and MSNBC both knew the language that was going out, and both knew the language complied with (Imus') contract. ... It was consistent with many of the things he had done," Garbus said.

CBS Radio owns Imus' former home radio station, WFAN-AM, and MSNBC simulcast the program on cable television.

An MSNBC spokeswoman contradicted Garbus' claim, saying that the broadcast aired without a delay and that there was no opportunity to delete his comments. Allison Gollust said MSNBC would not respond to any of Garbus' other remarks....

He prevailed (via settlement) on his "Bosses set me up" suit, though the details are confidential. At the end of the day, CBS settled AND paid up, because they knew they were screwed if the case went to court:
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=accde38e-b6df-4cff-ab0c-8699a2f07bbb

"Don Imus and CBS Radio have mutually agreed to settle claims that each had against the other regarding the Imus radio program on CBS...The terms of the settlement are confidential and will not be disclosed."

While neither side wanted to talk specifics, a CBS spokesperson characterized as "grossly false" a Drudge report claiming that Imus was set to receive a $20 million golden handshake..... Within a month, Imus brought out the big guns, hiring Garbus, a lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues, ostensibly to sue CBS. Garbus noted that Imus had for many years been paid to make un-PC—or, in the words of his CBS contract, "unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial"—commentary.

Garbus stated that he planned to sue CBS Radio for the full value of Imus' new five-year, $40 million contract, which he had inked just three months prior to his ouster.

After some more calculator work, Garbus figured Imus was due $120 million, including damages for all the pain and anguish suffered in the wake of his public expulsion....

If you're a public figure (or an impoverished actor--he'll take those on for free) with a First Amendment problem, Martin Garbus is the Silverback you wanna hire:



He sure knows how to pull in the dough.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/nyregion/25public.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/13/chris-matthews-creepy-crush-on-erin-burnett/

icky.

And if it was, were you struck blind?