Matthews Slams Reporter For Citing Blogs: "Let's Stick To Journalism. I Don't Do That Here" (VIDEO)

On "Hardball" Thursday, Chris Matthews issued a stern rebuke to NY Daily News reporter Liz Benjamin when she cited blogs on the possible "affair question" with regard to Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal from consideration for the New York Senate seat.

Earlier in the segment Matthews speculated that the 'personal problem' that was given as Kennedy's reason for withdrawing was her marriage to Edwin Schlossberg. But when Benjamin said that the "affair question" was surfacing on blogs, Matthews abruptly cut her off: "Let's stick to journalism. I don't do that here. If it's just blogging let's drop it."

Read more about Kennedy's withdrawal and the various reasons that have been given as explanations for the sudden reversal.

Comments

[LondonTownNY]

There is a lot of meaningless nastiness that has been directed at Caroline Kennedy. It is troubling,­especially considering that this woman has tried to do what she can with her relative celebrity for meaningful causes like Education in New York while remaining mostly a private citizen. Obama inspired many people who may have otherwise been content to remain on the sidelines politically to get more actively involved. The foregoing being said, going from private citizen to the Klieg lights of Broadway which is the rough and tumble New York political scene may have been a bit naive on her part, even with her having some strong allies and the best surrogates. Clintonism has affected or infected (depending on your perspective)the New York Democratic political apparatus. The selection of the relatively unknown but highly qualified Kirsten Gillibrand, if nothing else is clear is that Clinton allies wanted one of their own to fill Hillary's seat. One suspects that the jockeying for Hillary's seat went on long before the media began to focus on this in earnest. And now the scorched earth tactics being pursed in an effort to lower Caroline Kennedy's standing are really beginning to piss me off. Allies close to Hillary ought to be careful. VOTE FRAUD by those loyal to Clinton were overlooked in the New York Democratic Presidential Primary. Bullying a progressive like Caroline Kennedy or inquest in to her private life serves no purpose.

[preatorius]

Caroline needs to run for office, if her consituents deem her worthy, she will win.

[dax49]

in light of matthews questionable silence when james hagee slandered the catholic church, with the complicity of john mc cain, matthews should not mention journalistic ethics

[girlwild]

I look at blogs as opinion unless sources are cited. The journalistic standard is 2 sources on the same topic. If those sources are other bloggers, then it's not credible info.

[PIAPS]

Wow, maybe you better send that information to the New York Times.

[PoliticalAmazon]

I bet the NYTimes has more severe standards than that When I took journalism classes, it was three credible references, one of which you had to be able to quote and name.

Some bloggers are responsible and give references for what they publish. I think that would be a credible source, as long as the references were verified.

On the other hand, a media publication that has been wrong many, many times, such as the WSJ was during the Starr inquisition of the Clintons, has very little credibility. If their standards are so lax that they were consistently wrong about the Clintons, it is highly likely that their business information is equally corrupt.

[Antifascist-08]

When Chris decides to quit using the fools from Politico as sources on his show, I will believe him.

That being said, I think he was just trying to draw the line at talking about the personal lives of people, using blog sources, which is almost always wrong.

[MANK]

Does the name Hillary Clinton mean anything to you?

[Mort]

I didn't know real journalism meant incessant gum flapping. When Obama was speaking at the luncheon, all the other stations showed it. MSNBC had the feed going but Matthews was so busy yacking about something else he didn't even acknowledge the president. When Reagan died, there was a touching moment as Nancy quietly said goodbye. The other stations wisely paused in silence, but not Matthews. He loves to hear the sound of his on voice.

I don't doubt his intelligence or his patriotism. But I just can't stand to listen to him.

[FlamingLibrul]

I agree with you Mort. Matthews is a little to enamored of his own voice. He asks his guest a question, and then talks over them while they attempt to answer. I've wanted to throw my shoe at the TV on more than one occasion, waiting for him to shut up long enough for his guest to get in a couple of sentences. I've had to stop watching Hardball pretty much- I can find plenty of other things to irritate me.

[Mort]

Yeah. It's enough to drive you nuts. It's too bad, cause he's very well informed and really loves America. Keith has the ego and motormouth too, but at least he's pretty entertaining and he shows some respect for his guests. Rachel, on the other hand, is what they should all aspire to be like.

[dax49]

what nancy was saying good-bye to was all the free money the reagans were squirreling away that came from the republicans that put him in office, or did you think they got a free multi-million dollar house because they were so "loved".

[Mort]

Say what you want about Reagan and his politics, but this was nothing more than a very personal, touching goodbye from a wife to her dead husband. All it would have taken was a brief moment of silence from Matthews. A tiny bit of civility. All the other "journalists" did it. He couldn't.

[eXcommunicate]

This lady was clearly full of it. So, give Chris some credit there. However, not all blogs are trash (most are, but not all). He should know this and respect this.

[eXcommunicate]

Some blogs are trash. Actually, most blogs are trash. However there are a few legitimate journalistic blogs that are very good news sources. Chris is correct, for the most part, however he should not paint all blogs with such a wide brush.

[lvdragonlady]

Dear Chris

Talking heads are NOT journalists or reporters.
Hacks are hacks no matter how you paint them.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Far more TV and radio news hosts are professional in their approach than are the majoity of bloggers.

The majoirty of blogs are propaganda mills. There isn't a lot of attempt to provide credible information. Much of it is rumor spreading.

Most bloggers have never taken journalism classes, and are clueless about the necessity for having credible and quotable sources for the information they publish on their blogs. They also have never learned that it is unethical to spread a scandalous rumor, especially one that can cause harm to another person. They don't pause to ask themselves truthfully, "Can I communicate this information without stooping to using rumors about marriage infidelity?"

Some bloggers are very professional. When I wrote and published a lot, I tried very hard to be, and stuck to what I learned in journalism classes in college. If it was information I felt the average reader would not be famliar with, I provided footnotes and references. When collecting interview information, I always made sure I had three credible sources, one of which I could quote and reference by name.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Not true. Some, such as Rachel Maddow and Thom Hartmann, are highly credible sources, and will eagerly give you their references for information, if they haven't done it at the time of broadcast or publication.

[Truby]

I think what he meant to say was we stick to the script here.

[Harmony1812]

Bravo Chris!

[Clavis]

Yeah, blogs are places where research is done and the focus in on journalism, rather than on maximizing the profits of the unprofitable GE. What a tragedy that'd be!

[BlueKansas]

Matthews routinely cites Politico, Hoffpo and Salon. It isn't that he doesn't trust blogs; he just wasn't given the name of a credible blog by the woman he was talking to. So she dropped that rumor-bomb about "an affair" and he stopped her, asked her to cite her source and support the statement, and when she couldn't, he nailed her. He has done that many times before. I remember when he did it to Michelle Malkin, the last time she ever appeared on 'Hardball' and made a really scurrilous-false claim about John Kerry. He crucified her. And of course, you all remember his famous Rep. Bachmann interview.­..

Matthews does a lot of things that make my teeth itch, but this wasn't one of them.

[Adrienne Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

What? I missed this, come now, blogs have been the backbone of getting to the truth at times!

[bjammin]

I agree - Blogs were often the ONLY source of truth for a long time. Matthews in particular was a very enthusiastic war supporter back in the day. How can we ever trust him again? Stephen Colbert nailed David Gregory to the wall by 'complimenting' him and the MSM for not asking whether the Iraq war should have actually been waged, only for reporting that it was going wrong years later. Gregory honestly seemed to have no answer to that. It was laughable.

[Maschine]

In this case it s speculation and innuendo. You got facts, great, doesn't matter where they come from.

Real journalism reports the news. Investigative journalism searches the story. blogs are basically, op eds ( valid as they may be ) or an extension of what the MSM has reported.

Agree its a thin line but, Chris was right on this point.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Some are. Most aren't. Unless a blogger is going to stick to basic journalistic standards, their information should be suspect until verified because many bloggers use their blog just for propaganda distribution.

[aliceautumn]

Only if you an cite at least two repuatalbe sources. If I want inuuendo, opinion or rumour I will watch Entertainment Tonight. Unless you follow journalistic standards you are not a journalist not matter how much you write on your opinion page.

[doublehelix68]

So are cocktails parties and the faux news favorite "....some people say..." claim. Get it together progressives and democrats. Until we take the lead on owning the conversation like the neo-righties have been since the 1980's and calling the republic-party (yes I said republic, not republican!) on their biased commentary sans journalism, we will lose every time. They days of muddying any conversation just to confuse everyone and thus winning by default are nearly over. Lets put that last nail on the trickle-down coffin.

end of line.

[DofG]

So are we to believe that only "credible" news comes from journalists? This is an instance of dogmatic-i­nstitution­alized-thi­nking, where you, indeed, do not have to think anymore: because we have the scientists, the priesthood, and the "credible media" doing all the thinking for us. The point is to scrutinize ALL sources of information, regardless of source, because one can never really "know", when, and where the truth will reveal itself!

If a two year old child is trying, in their "own way", to tell you to look out for an oncoming car, are you going to just stand there, and not move because he, or she is only a child, and therefore not "credible"? Is this "Hardball", or "Hardhead"?

[PIAPS]

New York Times reports blogosphere stories as "news" all the time.
Examples: Palin's baby wasn't hers, John McCain's supposed affair
and I could go on and on. What is considered "news" anymore?
It's what the MSM wants it to be.

[FlamingLibrul]

Those 'stories' you site didn't come from the MSM, and why don't you provide a link to any NYT tabloid articles? You don't have any eh?