I recently wrote a diary in which I expressed my displeasure at having been directed to a fairly mediocre clip of Hardball. Now whenever there's a discussion of Hardball, there's inevitably a contingent of Chris Matthews bashers, who, of course, claim to have damn good reasons for it.
I investigated that claim and concluded the reason is that Media Matters doesn't like Chris Matthews.
Update: The mystery woman referenced below is Kirsten Powers. Question to kossacks: Is her middle name "Danger"?
It's pretty easy to see that Media Matters doesn't like Chris Matthews. They gave him their "Misinformer of the Year" award in 2005, after giving it to
Bill O'Reilly the previous year. It's hard to imagine how anyone in professional punditry could top Bill O'Reilly in that department, but that's not the point, because it's their award and they can give it to whomever they want. Perhaps they felt sheepish that neither O'Reilly nor anyone else cared when they gave it to him, so they'd just move onto someone else -- certainly, their reasoning could not have been that O'Reilly had cleaned up his act.
That Media Matters doesn't like Matthews is abundantly clear, though. Their extremely uncharitable, often to the point of being flat-out wrong, interpretations and captions with which they precede their clips of Hardball betray a remarkably rancorous attitude toward the poor guy. They steadfastly refuse to allow that Matthews, who, presumably unlike the authors of Media Matters, has actually met Bush, might have a positive personal opinion of the guy without being a horrible person for it. But besides that, the award seems out of place for the simple reason that the evidence against Matthews consists primarily of opinions he has espoused (as such), not particularly related to any matters of fact in the first place -- matters of fact, of course, presumably being the arena in which one might incur censure as a "misinformer." That is, unless Media Matters means to argue that Chris Matthews makes a habit of lying about what he really thinks.
So, based on my reading of Media Matters, their primary problem is that they don't like Chris Matthews, probably because they see him as having an excessively positive opinion of Bush, as a person. This seems like a fairly bizarre reason to dislike someone this intensely to me, but apparently it has some traction. In any case, I can't find much support for the notion that Matthews pushes "Republican talking points," except in the broadest possible interpretation of that term: Any turn of phrase potentially favorable to Republicans.
Anyway, since all the criticisms of Chris Matthews basically come back to the arguments of Media Matters, I have to think he's so reviled because Media Matters has compiled anti-Matthews material (talking points, I guess you would have to call them, given our working definition) in which many seem to be well-versed.
On an unrelated note, I just wanted to say that the chick who gave Ann Coulter the proverbial beat down on Hannity and Colmes the other day gets the Giambatista Seal of Approval. Fine as can be. I'd venture to say moreso than Michelle Malkin, the previous reigning champion of the Giambatista Hall of Lady Punditry. So, kudos to you, mystery woman. Please appear in more widely available internet footage at your earliest convenience.
And Kudos to MSNBC for throwing Miss Piggy off the air back in early July. I didn't hear about it until recently, but I was happy for it nonetheless. Now they just need to give mystery woman a show on CNN to replace that horrid Nancy Grace and cable news will be safe for the discerning viewer once again!