On Monday, Andrea Mitchell sat around the Morning Joe table saying that she felt the Ayers story was legit and that she was suprised the McCain folks haven't hit on it before.
So, we know she's an intrepid reporter. I mean, not many reporters could keep their train of thought during an onslaught of balloons like she did at the Republican Convention this year. She worked her way up the ranks of TV news over the years, and stays prominent largely for her smarts and institutional memory.
But her bending over backwards to defend the McCain campaign's use of Ayers as legit really rubbed me the wrong way -- if she feels that way, shouldn't she be judged for her own associations? It drove home a point of double-standards if not downright hypocrisy...
I think every time Andrea Mitchell reports on the financial crisis, or mentions the financial crisis, she should have to remind the audience who her husband his.
AND what Alan's role is in the country's financial situation.
Forbes account of the wedding
One merger that didn't require stockholder's approval was the April 1997 marriage of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan to NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell. The D.C. power couple had dated for 12 years before Greenspan popped the question on Christmas Day. They met in 1983 when Mitchell interviewed him about the future of Social Security, and Greenspan asked her out two days later. Who knew Social Security could be so sexy? The couple was married at the Inn at Little Washington in Washington, Va., a Relais & Chateaux property in the Blue Ridge Mountains. (Rooms start around $350.) Guests included Barbara Walters, Senator John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Henry Kissinger. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at the ceremony.
She can say she's an objective reporter. She might often seem like an objective reporter.
We all know she's often one of the best bellweathers for the latest MSM thinking of the moment. She's a consummate MSM pro. And it's not suprising her analyses of the economic crisis reflect the latest mainstream thinking.
But being so close to one of the most influential forces in our economy would have to skew her intepretation of the whole shabang. I could be convinced that's a good thing in some ways - she must be a whole lot more informed about economics and economic policy than the average bear. But her opinions about why things happened and who's to blame and all that other reporter type stuff has got to be highly influenced by her husband's role, thoughts, and positions.
[I'll grant that no one is truly 'objective' - we're all products of our experience, education, families, friends, and so on... but husband-and-wife - the influence of that relationship is bigger than most.]
What is she thinking when she "commentates"? Does she admit to herself that the man she sleeps with (presumably) is responsible for this mess?
When she says "oh the housing market got out of control," shouldn't she be saying "my husband let the housing market get out of control."
When she says "the economy is going to hell in a hand basket," shouldn't she add "oh, yea, by the way, my husband made that hand basket."
Networks shouldn't allow journalists to report on something they're so connected to, and in Andrea's case, she's close to the whole fucking economy.
At the very least, NBC and MSNBC should require that she should have to disclose who her husband is in every report or remark she makes about the economy.
But she goes on, reporting with that smile on her face - probably because of all the gold bullion she and Alan
bought up and buried in their backyard.