Chris Matthews might need a refresher course…in Journalism 101. Talking about the Rahm Emanuel rumors with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Rick Stengel, and Lawrence O’Donnell on today’s Morning Joe, Matthews declared that his job as a journalist is “to make this thing work, this new presidency work.” At which Scarborough et al pounced:
MATTHEWS: You know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.
SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about your being a journalist.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country.
SCARBOROUGH: So your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully, because this country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now….
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I’m a little confused about what the job is here, because of course we all want things to work, but I’m not sure it’s our job. Rick Stengel, in terms of, when someone is—
MATTHEWS: How can you not root for the success of a new president?
BRZEZINSKI: You know what? I just think, well, it’s going to be important to ask questions.
SCARBOROUGH: As Americans, Chris Matthews, we are all rooting for the success of Barack Obama. America is at a perilous time. But you just talked about being a journalist, and your job as a journalist is not to question motives—and then, two seconds later, you said your job was to make this presidency a success. We’re just—that’s curious.
Curious, indeed. The job of a politician, Chris—say, I don’t know, a Pennsylvania senator—is “to make this work successfully.” That is not the job of a journalist.
[h/t Michael Calderone]
Someone needs to tell Mr Matthews he needs to turn in his resignation as a journalist and go to work as a PR person for the President-Elect...he and the rest of us would feel a lot more comfortable
Posted by mike roberts on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 01:42 PM
So will the show be called "Softball" or "T-Ball" from now on?
Posted by TW on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 03:02 PM
was it matthew's job to make sure the last president succeeded?
Posted by steve on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 04:14 PM
Did anyone else notice Chuck Todd steer clear from the conversation?
Meet the Press with Chuck Todd
Posted by Ken on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 04:40 PM
What's everyone upset for? HE FINALLY TOLD THE TRUTH! His job for the past 8 years was to destroy this country, err, I mean president. Now that "tingle up my leg" Matthews has a socialist president, his job is "to help him" :)
Posted by glitch on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 04:58 PM
Chris sounded a little drunk on his slurred S's and probably asked himself if he said that out loud. I think his show should not only be softball, it should be slow-pitch.
Posted by Al G. Mason on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 05:40 PM
It's not like we didn't already know this. He helped get the man elected, now it's on to Stage Two: Determine who comes off Mount Rushmore.
Posted by Scott on Thu 6 Nov 2008 at 09:18 PM
The problem with the press especially during the run up to the Iraq war is that they all happily played the role of cheer-leader and didn't ask questions. That's the reason why so many nefarious things were happening behind the scenes during the Bush Admin because the media stopped acting in the public's our best interests.
I am a huge Obama supporter and I want the press to keep the president accountable and ask him the questions necessary, do behind the scenes investigations and maintain necessary transparency. All of these things aid, the change that needs to come to Washington.
I like Chris Matthews but I want him to retain his journalistic integrity. That's the best way he will help an Obama presidency
Posted by P Kayne on Fri 7 Nov 2008 at 01:19 PM
Oh dear Lord. I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I want the press to watch him and the entire administration (the entire Government) with a critical eye. We had enough weak-kneed journalism during the Bush administration in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. The people don't need journalists to be cheerleaders, they need them to be watchdogs.
Posted by alien on Fri 7 Nov 2008 at 04:12 PM
I have no problem with Matthews or anyone else advocating on the air. FOX News already does it plenty, either openly or by their choice of "news" to cover. The so-called professionalization of journalism is a relatively new phenomenon from the early/mid-1900s and is premised on the unachievable -- objectivity. I'd much rather my TV news sources be out front about their biases than pretend they are striving for this mythical balance or objectivity. People are so quick to shout "unprofessional," but really, how much is a graduate degree in journalism really worth? Reporters would be much better served by studying history while working for their college papers. Reporters who call themselves journalists take themselves far too seriously.
Posted by David H.. on Fri 7 Nov 2008 at 05:39 PM
Did no one notice yet that Mr. Matthews referred to the President Elect as "Barack?" Isn't that level of familiarity reserved for those close to the Senator? Someone who may be a on staff, or a personal friend.
When was the last time you heard Chris (used for affect here...) refer to President Bush as "George?"
Posted by Jeff Mitchell on Sat 8 Nov 2008 at 12:20 PM
I don't normally watch "Monrning Joe" but I caught it that day. Joe and the rest of his crew had just finished speculating on the potential picks for Obama's cabinet in a very negative and cynical way...very different from how they spoke of the decisions Bush/Cheney made during their first administration. While I have never loved Matthews and don't think he is a very good speaker, I think what he was trying to say was that he wasn't going to participate in the negative speculation without any facts. Nobody can argue that "Morning Joe" comes from a more conservative perspective than Maddow or Olbermann. I just felt in his own inelegent way Matthews was refusing to join in the negative speculation.
Posted by Fran Mitkowski on Sat 8 Nov 2008 at 02:26 PM
Matthews refusing to be join in negative speculation? Since when?
Posted by kit on Sun 9 Nov 2008 at 01:58 AM
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/obamedia.html
Posted by Fran Mitkowski on Sun 9 Nov 2008 at 03:38 PM
I call B.S. on Fran.
..very different from how they spoke of the decisions Bush/Cheney made during their first administration.Who is "they," Fran? Scarborough's show didn't exist in 2001.
Posted by Hoystory on Mon 10 Nov 2008 at 03:35 PM
I didn't mean Joe specifically I meant the "lap dog" press which basically gave Bush/Cheney a free ride for @ 5 years. Come on, you really don't believe that the media, one of the largest lobbying factions--actually has a liberal bias? Many journalists may be democrats but they aren't the ones who decide what will and will not be aired on television.
Posted by fran on Tue 11 Nov 2008 at 09:15 AM
Is he possibly gay and in love with Obama? First the tingling legs and now this? He seems way to emotionally involved.
Posted by ashby on Tue 20 Jan 2009 at 12:12 PM