Cori is right about Matthews. Quit claiming to be "News" -
From:LindyBill
WHAT'S THE POINT OF A QUESTION?
By Cori Dauber
I've always liked Hardball with Chris Matthews but lately I've just had it. It's always been a loud show, and it's always been a fast show, with the start of one question coming just as the answer to the first is coming out. But things have changed lately. Matthews talks more than the guests do; not because he's spitting out questions but because he's laying out his answer.
<font size=4>
It seems to me that what's happened is that once he decided that the war was not just a mistake but a lie, somebody's lie, and nothing but ideology overtaking analysis, he just stopped listening. And when you stop listening, you stop learning. If your interest is analysis, and advocacy, you have to learn what the other side's arguments are. If you're a journalist you have to learn what information you don't know. But he's only listening now for things people can tell him that will confirm what he already believes.
This really came home to me tonight when he was interviewing James Woolsey, former DCI. Woolsey wouldn't take a position on Chalabi one way or the other, but he did say that there were things about the story about the leak to Iran that just bothered him and he mentioned a few -- including the specific question, why would the Iranians transmit the fact that the line was compromised over the presumably now-compromised line? If Matthews had really been listening he would have learned something important. Not necessarily that Chalabi's a misjudged man, much less an angel, because Woolsey wasn't saying either thing. But he would have learned that this story isn't air tight and there are some productive places for a good reporter to push.
All he says is, "so are you a Chalabi man, right now?" You can almost see the information zoom in one ear and out the other.
He only really comes to life with a few guests -- guests who agree with him, where what results are not interviews, but conversations. Now, they're interesting, high powered, fast conversations. But they're also one-sided and unfair. Which is fine since they aren't journalism.
Now why doesn't Matthews have the courage to do the same thing O'Reilly does several times a week -- and say explicitly that what he's doing isn't journalism, but analysis, advocacy, and commentary. |
