Chris Matthews Admits: MSNBC Bosses Were "Basically Pro-War"

In a speech at Harvard's Institute of Politics on Monday, Chris Matthews admitted that MSNBC bosses were "basically pro-war during the war." The remark came in a larger discussion of top-down editorial control at the network — of which Matthews claimed there was none, citing the fact that many of his bosses supported Hillary Clinton while he has been very vocal for Obama.

His full statement, in response to a question whether MSNBC officially supports Obama (via Politico's Michael Calderone):

"Well, it's not official." (LAUGH) "Well, I don't think Joe Scarborough has. And I don't think Tucker Carlson did. And Keith does his thing. He does his thing--it's something and it's very successful. I do my thing. I don't think that's true. I think... my sense is that everybody that lives in New York is for Hillary. The people I work with--all my bosses--seem to be for Hillary. I just sense it. They don't actually say it, but there's no sense from the top I can tell you that it's pro-Obama.. by any means. That's not what I get. And it was basically pro-war during the war.. the bosses were. And I was up against that. And if there's anybody telling me to push Obama, I haven't heard it yet. And by the way, they're so fickle.... but there seems to be a New York thing about Hillary. Just the people from... it's like the Yankees and the Mets... it's their thing. You know? It's Hillary. You know? And I feel it. I find it. It's hard to figure sometimes. But I don't know who you are talking about. I know who you are talking about."

As revealed in the New York Times Magazine profile of Matthews by Mark Leibovich, Matthews idolizes NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert like an older brother:

Tim -- as in Russert, the inquisitive jackhammer host of "Meet the Press" -- is a particular obsession of Matthews's. Matthews craves Russert's approval like that of an older brother. He is often solicitous.

In her new book Right is Wrong, Arianna Huffington critiques the media for being too compliant with administration policy during the run-up to war, and she particularly lays into Russert, saying, among other things, that he helped pump up the terrorist panic:

Take Tim Russert, whose July 1, 2007, Meet the Press interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was about as priapic a display as you're ever likely to see outside of a porno film or the monkey cage at the zoo, with Russert desperately trying to get Chertoff to pump up the panic meter...You could almost hear the blood rushing to his loins--and the palpable sense of deflation when Chertoff refused to stroke his fantasy

Comments

[nogimmicks]

Of course Chris was cheering for the war and is bashing Obama now. But what do you want from Chris? Anyone who is familiar with the concept of "work for hire" would have never assumed that Chris is a free agent. His job is to sell his company products. And he is a good salesman.

The ones who did not understand the "work for hire" concept were out a long time ago (eg Peter Arnett, Tom Brokaw, Ashleigh Banfield and Phil Donahue). TB even received a funny letter.

[nogimmicks]

Chris, tell us something we don't know. MSNBS bosses, CNN bosses, Fox bosses, NYT bosses, WT bosses, Time bosses, Newsweek bosses , etc. etc. They all are pro-war and share responsibility for the carnage.

[the964kid]

No shit.

They make more money during war coverage since americans obviously watch a lot more news during a war then during peacetime. CNN, FOX News, NY Times, Washington Post and just about every other major news outlet failed all americans, who were hoping for honest reporting.

[Earl]

They are profiteers. What do we expect them to be? Patriots? Come on.

[filmex]

And let's not forget that Matthews was also pro-war, although he has laboriously work to remake that fact.

After the fall of Baghdad, he mocked those "pundits on the Left" who had cautioned against such an elective incursion. He went so far as to declare giddily, "Today we are all Neo-Cons".

Now he talks incessantly about being against this BS war from the get-go, which is as phony a pronouncement as has ever been uttered.

There were three brave souls at MSNBC that were brave enough to ponder on air that perhaps our involvement in Iraq would prove to be more troublesome than it appeared in those early days of shock and awe.

They were Peter Arnett, Ashleigh Banfield and Phil Donahue, and all were pink-slipped by the network for not wearing their patriotism on their sleeves. They refused to play Pentagon stenographer like Wolf Blitzer and EVERYONE at CNN and Fox Noise, and they were all shown the door for actually acting like true journalists.

The only thing more despicable than MSNBC's actions in firing that brave trio is Chris Matthews attempt to join their noble club, when he was as much a pandering, pro-war flag waver as anyone around. He changed his stripes only once it was "safe" to do so.

[Aurelius]

Tweety had his doubts about the war before it started. But the night of the "cake walk" into Baghdad, Matthews said on his show, "I used to be against the war, but I was wrong." I believe those were his exact words. He then went on a rapturous verbal excursion about how successful the march to Baghdad had been--as if the "success" of the US military assault proved the rightness of the mission, and, by implication, the rightness of the war.

[speakingtruth2power]

They were all covering up for the wrongness of the war.

It was based on lies and resulted in the death of over

half a MILLION human beings for nothing but their oil!

[KOisGod]

"Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan"

[realpolitic]

MSNBC has not done any reporting on how their military analysts and the military analysts of other networks were given paid tours and courted by the Pentagon. In return, the military analysts adopted Pentagon talking points in many cases. They should be straightfoward about how their analysts were influenced by Pentagon propaganda. Also, MSNBC, outside of Keith Olbermann, does very little reporting on the constitution assaulting practices of President George Bush.

[ubuntu]

Does anyone remember how Chris Matthews rabidly attacked the Texas state senator during the Texas primary? He had a wild demeanor (like Tom Cruise on Oprah). Matthews asked the senator if he could name one thing Obama had done. The senator was stumped by the ferocity of Matthews' attack. Clinton and her surrogates then used that in the runup to the Texas/Ohio primaries.

[wsblake]

To be classified under the " No,shit,really?" Column. All the evidence that you need to prove that all of the MSM was prowar is the very fact that the invasion took place. If the MSM had even told half the truth about it way back in '03 it never would have been allowed to come off-

[leftyandproudofit]

"I think... my sense is that everybody that lives in New York is for Hillary."

Just goes to show you how out of touch Chris Matthews is (besides not being able to speak grammatically correct English). I live in New York, and NO ONE I know is for Hillary. Matthews becomes less and less significant with each passing day. What an ass.

[NABNYC]

msnbc, as they say, is "the" place for politics. I think their team is doing a terrific job of covering the primary campaigns, and assume that will continue through the general election and hopefully thereafter. They not only seem to have fun or make it fun, they also are intelligent in their analysis -- even when I don't agree with them. Pat Buchanan, for example, is a Republican cheerleader, but he sometimes makes some pretty good points. Chuck Todd is amazing. David Shuster, David Gregory are both solid.

Chris Matthews was great last night, seemed to have settled into his co-anchor election night arrangement with Keith (I Heart Olbermann). Norah O'Donnel, pregnant, amazed me by not only being awake but standing on her feet at midnight pointing out something, and she is as sharp as they come. I saw her again this morning with McCauliffe and she handed him his lying teeth on a platter.

Finally, why isn't Rachel Sklar on there like Rachel Maddow (who I also like)? I think Dan Abrams and Rachel Sklar are a great team, and someone should be putting them together more often. More women and minorities, please, but otherwise good job.

[Binx101]

It is plainly obvious that MSNBC, a company that is owned by a war machine parent company, would have a inclination to be pro-war. Unlike the FDR days ... war profiteering is cheered by the US. Why?
We have no idea. Perhaps American Greed trumps patriotism. We're sad.

Today we talked about Rachel Maddow's sane approach to what's next for clinton.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[zitlight73]

MSNBC top brass are probably heavily invested in Raytheon,Blackwater and Halliburton and other defense companies along with whatever Republican owned company that came up with that brilliant idea of selling little Chinese-made flag pins to real Americans to distinguish them from the rest of us unpatriotic riffraff.

[Binx101]

GE owns NBC

[goodog]

Only a few of us can cast this stone at MSNBC.

Seventy-five percent of Americans were for the war before 75% are now against it. Only a relatively small collection of liberal enclaves in the usual places, New York, Boston, Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, probably Austin, but nowhere else in Texas; all of them, along with an even smaller group of old-school Goldwater conservatives in the Southwest, were dead-set against this war from the beginning.

We marched in tens and hundreds of thousands in the run-up to war. We were publicly branded as traitorous terrorist sympathizers. We were arrested en mass in protests across the country, sprayed with water cannons, rubber bullets, and tear gas. Our lives were vaguely threatened by FOX News talking heads who insist we shouldn't be surprised if a dirty bomb blows up in one our cities, San Francisco in particular. Bill O'Reilly, himself, took joy in what mayhem would ensue if a busy tourist attraction like Coit Tower or the Golden Gate Bridge was bombed in "America's Favorite City." None of them delved very deeply into who but they would want to wreak such havoc upon us if we are supposedly helping America's enemies.

Seventy-five percent were four the war before you were against it. Blame the press if you want, but the truth is, you wouldn't listen to those of us who told you the truth in the very beginning.

[awcbuddy8]

What truth is that exactly?

[realpolitic]

The truth is that Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire.

[Nyland8]

"Only a few of us can cast this stone at MSNBC.

Seventy-five percent of Americans were for the war before 75% are now against it."

Hmmm. It would seem that, by your own thumbnail estimates, 75% of us CAN cast stones at MSNBC - and all the other major networks. Because if they'd been doing their job as the Fourth Estate should, then the percentage of us who would have been in favor of the war would have been miniscule.

MSNBC - and NBC - and ABC - and CBS - and FOX - and CNN - and others, are all the very reasons that American's were in favor of the war. They are the ones who manufactured consent. They are the ones who manipulated public opinion.

They are to blame - all of them.

8

[lippp]

I don't agree. You didn't have to look very far to know our weapons inspectors in Irag pre-invasion were saying they did not find any WMD, did not think they were there, and wanted more time to verify their findings. While this was not widely reported by the media, I did witness several interviews laying claim to credibility issues with Bush, Cheney and Rice's assertion to the contrary. So now to place most of the blame on the media is simply a false rationalization on your part. Sure, the media failed us. But most Americans (and clearly most Republicans) did as well.

[ema]

Americans are the most intellectually lazy slobs on the planet. With a plethora of information available at their fingertips, they believe what they see/hear on network TV?

It's just that they wanted WAR without the pain of war and now that's it's going poorly, they are reaching for the remote.

[BlackbirdHighway]

It's common knowledge that Phil Donohue got fired from MSNBC for being anit-war. They said it was for poor ratings, but he had the highest rated show on MSNBC at the time, easily beating out Tweety's Hardball show.

[awcbuddy8]

It's clear he got fired for being a tool. End of story.

[Nyland8]

Tools don't get fired. Tools get used.

8

[drzoon]

no... he got fired for being anti war.

his show was exactly what the network needed at the time... a highly rated show with some branding....

but they fired him anyway. fired him off a show that was the highest rated on the network

oh well...

[realpolitic]

He was fired because he was not a tool. If he was a tool, he would work for Fox.

[Chris]

Umm is this really that Ariana books says

"In her new book Right is Wrong, Arianna Huffington critiques the media for being too compliant with administration policy during the run-up to war, and she particularly lays into Russert, saying, among other things, that he helped pump up the terrorist panic:

Take Tim Russert, whose July 1, 2007, Meet the Press interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was about as priapic a display as you're ever likely to see outside of a porno film or the monkey cage at the zoo, with Russert desperately trying to get Chertoff to pump up the panic meter...You could almost hear the blood rushing to his loins--and the palpable sense of deflation when Chertoff refused to stroke his fantasy"

Umm in 2007 the run up to the war was well over. Did the fact checker miss that one?

[valkyrie607]

Oh! It's the run-up to the next war! You know, the one with Iran. Didn't you hear? Or was it Oceania? Well, whatever.

You make a good point...

[lisakaz2]

We woulda never guessed Tweety! Is this the only country in the world where you can appear patriotic in wanting to send your nation's soldiers into a meat grinder, give them no help when they return (if they return) and all the while line your pockets???

[biglover]

Right lisakaz2. What a f'd up country this is. Goddamm America.