Talk:Chris Matthews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Katefan0 deleting sections about Links to Abramoff

I think there is a good chance she worked with Matthews or Abramoff. Katefan0 wrote, "I am a political reporter in Washington, D.C." [1]

Could this be wiki vandalism by Washington DC reporters now just like the vandalism that came from congressional offices? [2] [3]

She seems to be working to make open-encyclopedia a censored (Right Wing?) encyclopedia to undermine wikipedia and SourceWatch: check out how tame and censored this article is about Tom Delay: http://open-encyclopedia.com/Tom_DeLay

They seemed to have deleted everything about Jack Abramoff. The search engine brings it up but the article may have been deleted when he pled guilt, I don't know. Can I claim abuse by an admin? she seems to be one.

Perhaps the only way to stop this is to ban all IP's from DC, but then the smart ones will simply use proxies from Russia and China.

Perhaps wiki is doomed to fail because money buys reporters and bloggers who may always yell louder than those who need to make an honest buck.

I bet there are a dozen Abramoffs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.98.89 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I was doing new pages patrol last night and saw an enormous text dump into this page that included "soon to be discredited" as a desciptor for an organization. Seemed highly dubious to me so I rolled it back. End of story. Casting aspersions on my motives, suggesting I'm somehow corrupt, collusive or the equivalent of an angry blogger, and all the rest is a pretty slimy thing to do. Remove the speck from your own eye. I just had another look at the contribution, and while it seems to me to be overly-long, I won't remove it again. Please remember to assume good faith. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 said on this site, "I'm Kathy Wolfe. Katefan0 ..." (from wiki user talk) User_talk:Grouse

Are you the same Kathy Wolfe who works for Executive Intelligence Review - LaRouche Publications? Do you do "new pages patrol" for LaRouche? I ask because it might seem to be immoral by some here for an admin to be paid by a political organization in our nation's capital to blank out articles that are critical of Washington. You said you are a congressional reporter. While I have great respect for the quality articles I have read in EIR, I worry about people getting paid to blank out wiki pages.

Again, I ask, can I claim admin abuse? Why does she wipe out articles without making suggestions for improvement?

[edit] Deleted This

I deleted this because there is no need to talk to anyone like that. If you have some proof, why not replace the personal slants with it. Although I respect your anger, I remind you that there are better ways to express it. Maybe you could pick up the phone and call Katefan or vice-versa and settle your differences. Thx!

[edit] Abramoff Contribution Part Deux

Please reach an agreement on this. It is a current and important piece of information. I was the original Abramoff poster way back when. Admittedly, my choice of words was not completely free of my opinion as I am not a professional research writer; however, someone else had posted a very balanced piece in place of mine.

We are at a significant point in our nation’s cultural and political history. Mr. Matthews is a player in the game. Let us all try to give the readers the full spectrum of his history, in both accomplishment and controversy.

So please, would someone or some group reach a consensus on this piece of information? It is well established that he had participated in the fundraiser. His comments of late have been controversial. In other words, there is plenty of citation out there.

Thank you.

[edit] Abramoff Contribution

Whoever had posted that portion, I thank you. As I had stated earlier, I feel that it is an important piece of information.

[edit] Links to Jack Abramoff

It is important to keep this posted as it is a current and unresolved matter.

Thx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.165.168 (talk • contribs) .

Please do not keep reverting this section until a consensus is reached on the talk page. It is Wikipedia policy not to break the three revert rule. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

_____

Sorry for the bad use. I just feel it is an important piece of information pertaining to Mr. Matthews. I shall go over the tutorial before I post anything else (I was unaware that you had one!)

Thx!

[edit] Matthews graduate work

Do we know if he finished his graduate work at UNC, and if so what degree did he earn (masters, PhD, etc)?

He finished, but I don't know what degree he received. I would assume an M.A., but I don't have confirmation. 208.54.95.68 01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthews & Bush

I removed the following graph from this article

"I'm more conservative than people think," and "I've voted Republican many times, (including) George W. Bush

I did an extensive search for this quote. I could not find it. Until someone can cite it (from a source that does not originate from this Wiki article), it should be left out. I do not doubt it is true, but without independent verification, it does not belong. Its True even if the quote isn't

See here. 68.110.199.122 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthews liberalism

The fact that he is a political liberal is true, while covering the presidential debates in 2004 he actually started an argument over abortion with a random woman just because she said she was going to vote for President Bush because she was pro-life. -- Old Right 19:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As noted in my summary, you have demonstratably been extremely biased against liberals and so I definitely question your edit. It's an unrelated tanget that wasn't worked into the text; it was akin to an after-thought. Entirely POV edit. Particularly the [[pro-choice|pro-abortion]] renaming. Cburnett 20:05, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I, by no means, will sensor political remarks for people who host a political talk show (actors is entirely another issue) but you were nowhere near writing it from a neutral point of view and I cannot give you benefit of the doubt considering your edit history. Cburnett 20:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Matthews cannot be both a "staunch" Democrat and a frequent voter for Republicans.

Especially when he has made comments like, "We are all Neocons now!" at the felling of the statue of Saddam in Baghdad Square in March of 2003.BobCubTAC 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthews and Bush

I could not tell you the exact show, but it was in the year before the 2004 election. Republican pollster Frank Luntz was on the show, and Matthews, in the context of the conversation, pointed out that he had voted for Bush in 2000. Concerning the arguement with the pro life woman, this is quite normal for Matthews who regularly recognizes that the president cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. In light of his three moderately right SCOTUS nominations, this seems like a valid point.

[edit] Media Matters award

Thanks you to whoever added the link on the Media Matters "award" for 2005. Media Matters is pretty careful about its case, I recommend not taking what they say for face value, but read their references-- they generally include the complete context so you can get the whole story, even if you don't agree with their basic point of view, you can see where they are coming from.

Curtvprice 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Matters

I think the above comment was blatantly false. Media Matters is very poor about explaining their contentions. They give 15 examples on their award page; I will take the time to address a couple. I agree somewhat with Chris politically, although I'm more conservative. I do however watch his show regularly because I believe it to be a very good political show.

1)"Matthews distorted Murtha's Iraq proposal. Matthews repeatedly suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha's (D-PA) call for a redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq was inconsistent with his record of being "known as the soldiers' friend" and "pro-Pentagon, pro-soldier." The suggestion echoed news reports that described Murtha as being "usually pro-military" -- implying that his position on redeployment is not -- and a "pro-military" Democrat, suggesting that the typical Democrat is not. [Hardball, 11/18/05]"

When you click on the link to their story about that you get this: "MATTHEWS: Mr. Murtha, I've known you for years, I really like you, but you've always been a hawk. You've always been a defense defender, big defense spending, big support for the Pentagon, known as the soldiers' friend. Why are you against this war in Iraq now? Murtha: [. . . (my ellipses for several paragraphs of Murtha's response)] [ . . .] MATTHEWS: OK. Let me go to Bob Shrum. Your view, Jack Murtha is a pretty traditional Democrat, a bread-and-butter, working-wages Democrat from western Pennsylvania. He's normally seen as a hawk, pro-Pentagon, pro-soldier. He's called now for almost immediate withdrawal. He calls it a redeployment, but it's definitely get our troops out of Iraq. Where does that take us now, Bob?"

What, where the hell do they get an insinuation that he's not being a "soldier's friend."

2)"Matthews falsely insisted that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq was unexpected. Ignoring evidence that the Bush administration received repeated prewar warnings of the potential for a sustained insurgency in Iraq, Matthews insisted that the continuing bloodshed had not been anticipated. Matthews suggested that the "enduring" nature of the Iraqi insurgency was a surprise and told viewers that he didn't "know many people who expected it to still be going on this long." However, as reported by USA Today, "Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks." [The Chris Matthews Show, 9/25/05"

The link gives this quote from The Chris Matthews Show: "MATTHEWS: [Weekly Standard editor] Bill [Kristol], we were all wrong, I guess, in thinking -- I thought it was going to be much bloodier going into Iraq, the initial encounter would be much bloodier. It was a quick campaign by [Gen.] Tommy Franks. But I don't know many people that expected it to still be going this long. This resistance had been vigorous, it's been enduring, and it doesn't seem like it's losing any strength. What did we get wrong here?"

This is little more complicated example than the last one. The first reason this is wrong is that he (like many others) often says "we" to mean a U.S. government agency acting on behalf of the entire population. An example of this would be if I said, "we've been having a battle over the Alito nomination." Clearly it's the Senate, not you and I, that are actually battling, but people say this frequently in democracies. Polling before the war showed that an unmistakable majority of Americans supported the war, and one could infer that these people had some faith in civilian Pentagon officials' arguements, so "we" in this case was the majority of American people believing that arguement. The second reason is that Hardball was one of the few television programs that has been asking questions since the beginning. In fact, I think it's a little ridiculous to give Chris an award for being a war misinformer, when he was one of the few outspoken critics of the war in the beginning. In fact, MSNBC is clearly the most anti-war channel. The only person in their prime time who is even for the abstract idea of a war with Iraq is Scarborough. Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson are outspoken critics of the war, and Keith Olbermann openly critizes the administration, the war, and conservative pundits more than an other host on cable news. When the war started, Bill Press (outspoken critic) and Pat Buchannan had a left v. right brand of show. Buchannan is one of the those Media Matters cites as a one of the recurring conservatives that supposedly makes the show conservative. This may be a fair point on some issues, but the man started The American Conservative magazine as an anti-Iraq-war magazine, hardly a bunch of administration lackeys. Also Chris makes the point in every conversation I've ever seen about the war that people never like foreigners in their country and that we've created terrorists in Iraq.


Why did I write all this? Because I couldn't fall asleep and I deeply distrust Media Matters. They employ the same tactic as Fox News and most politicians: playing to people's fears by quoting facts either out of context or selectively. There are websites that do a much better job of finding bias like factcheck.org and the now defunct spinsanity.org. Hardball is an interview show. Interviewers, especially in the political realm, are intrinsically contrarian. That's their job. Quoting hardball questions to liberals and softballs to conservatives is only legitimate if it is accompanied by hardball questions to conservatives and softballs to liberals.

Also, I'm the one that added to the article "a liberal media watchdog group. The website claims they have 'monitored, analyzed, and corrected conservative misinformation in the media, wherever and whenever we find it.'" I think that's fair.

The debate between liberal and conservative is a diversion. If watch groups point out corruption or potential bribery in the media then that is neither liberal nor conservative. I don't trust any one source. So called "liberal watch groups" could be just as corrupt as the propagandists in Washington. Marksda 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC):

You seem to be in agreement with me; however, I would think if that were that case that you would simply say so. "The debate between" . . . I never entered that debate; I only pointed out their stated objective and why they fall short of that. I think it's interesting that you will see right-wing blogs complain about the same topics Media does from the other side. "If watch groups " . . . Yes, if Media Matters does that in some cases, I applaud them. In this case, they failed miserably. "I don't trust" . . . Who does? "So called" . . . Could and, in this case, are. From my original post: "They employ the same tactic as Fox News and most politicians: playing to people's fears by quoting facts either out of context or selectively."

Media Matters is a liberal organization. Using the term 'progressive' is an attempt to hide its liberal views. Since the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are used through out the article, for clarity I changed the descriptive term to 'liberal'. 198.5.167.61 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Article needs copyproofing and deweaseling. Jackk 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that this article might be a "mockumentary" because I can find no evidence that this matthews guy ever worked for any democratic politicians.xerocs 19:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthews was a speech writer for President Carter and top aide for Tip O'neil when O'neil was the Speaker of the House. --JPotter 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthews spent 15 years in politics and government: he worked in the White House for four years under President Jimmy Carter as a Presidential speechwriter and on the Government Reorganization Project, in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senator Frank Moss (Utah) and Senator Edmund Muskie (Maine), and was the top aide for Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. for six years.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/330815.asp?cp1=1

[edit] blanking

Hi Trilemma

I'd like to you consider that the removal of the Matthews comment on Imus is not blanking, but simply removing some unencyclopedic content. I've removed information linking Matthews to Abramoff, as well as misc. comments Chris makes about varying subjects. These are current event news items that people are entering here. Five years from now, no one will remember who said what about Brokeback Mountain, therefore its lack of relevance. --JPotter 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If the only standard is what people will remember five years from now, then the vast majority of information on wikipedia should be considered non encyclopedic. It's not just about what the general populas will remember; it's about the person and framing their standing in their arena. That's what the inclusion of Matthews' comments does. Trilemma 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Consider the ramifications of entering every comment made about a current events news item. The article would be bloated with comments about various news items of the day. Then three months later, the comments don't seem as relevant or timely. Remember, Wikipedia isn't a blog. Abramoff, misc. comments about politcal figures, the Iraq war, just aren't notable enough to merit inclusion. Granted, if Matthews makes a comment that significantly shows his position on something,(like the fact that he voted for Bush in 2000) then that is relevant because it says something about him. This comment on Imus doesn't seem to meet that criteria. I don't see why it should be mentioned, but I am open to compelling reasoning showing such. --JPotter 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Potter,

At some point, a reporter must be judged by words he speaks. We must not disregard all unpleasant quotes by Matthews as trivial "comments".

When a creditable media watch group, Media Matters, claims a reporter is at fault then it is significant, and may be notable, in an encyclopedia. I too find Matthews words to be very odd, yet if it weren't for all the other reports of Washington reporters being paid off, I might not be so persistent about sending a red flag out about Matthews connection to Abramoff. Truth is, I can relate to Chris Matthews. Yet while I may like him, I fear that too many Washington reporters are being paid to repeat the party line. It may be legal, but it needs to be exposed as immoral.

Perhaps the biggest story is that the reporters we trust our freedom to are being paid off. Ordinary people can not make decisions without knowledge of what is really going on. We need Wiki to counter this trend if it exists. Otherwise, we risk creating little more than glorified Wiki resumes within an imaginary world painted by Capital Hill's propaganda bots. Marksda 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says MediaMatters.com is a credible news organization? Per their own website, they are a liberal website bent on fighting "conservative misinformation" --JPotter 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Potter,

I too first labeled them as liberal, but then I realized that it was my opinion. Since their argument was sound, and the article was not a critique of Media Matters, I removed the "liberal" label from my later posts. If Media Matters refuses to be critical of lies by liberals then I will be inclined to label them too as liberal. I just didn't have the proof that they were liberal and I was not willing to make that assumption just yet. Marksda 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Markda, their own website says they are liberal and only seek to combat "conservative" misinformation. They violate Wikipedia standards on reliability. --JPotter 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Potter,

Your argument would be more convincing if Bush had not recently spend 1 billion on propaganda, most of the US media was not controlled by 5 CEO's, and if talking points for many of the leading news broadcasts were not regularly produced by admittedly conservative foundations. Enjoy your bliss Potter, I bet there are plenty of lobbyists in Washington who would be pleased to share lunch with you! Marksda 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of criticism about Matthews

I wish that people would quit removing evidence that sites a potential conservative bias of Chris Matthews. There are sections detailing controversies and criticism for many other prominent figures in many other Wikipedia articles, so why can't there be one for Matthews? In order to provide for more balanced coverage, readers of this article should be aware of well-known controversies that involve a figure, such as a potential conservative or liberal bias if one is a prominent newscaster.

The main reason why I think the critical comments from liberals keep being removed is that rightists want to do whatever they can to keep most people falsely believing that Chris Matthews is a liberal, when indeed he is not.

It's an interesting piece of original research, but against Wikipedia policy. Find a reliable source that reports the material you are trying to add, and it can stay. Otherwise it violates Wikipedia's goals on three main issues, reliability/verifiability, NPOV, and original research. The more suitable place for something like this is a blog, which Wikipedia is not. --JPotter 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New York Metro has done a good profile on Matthews (include his : http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/4819/index.html

This article details the career path of Matthews as well as his general personality. While TV personalities generall do not like to admit they belong to one specific ideology/party, their actions and biases will determine their audience. Matthews today caters to the right; that's how his show became a hit. His ratings jumped as he started to bash Clinton. As a consequence some political insiders from the left won't even bother to book anyone on his show.

[edit] Matthews never stated he voted for Ralph Nader

I belive someone has vandalized this entry. Matthews has never voiced support for Ralph Nader, and if you follow the link provided it actually states he voted for Geroge W. Bush in 2000.

[edit] Is it worth mentioning?

Perhaps it isn't, but I found Chris Matthews 2-7-07 appearance on the "Imus in the Morning" show to be a remarkable illustration of the distinction between cable and over-the-air broadcasting. Matthews dropped the f-bomb (more precisely, the "f-ing" adjective form of the word), which was bleeped on the simulcast of the program on radio, but was not censored at all on MSNBC. (For details, see http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/7/82213.shtml or http://www.nypost.com/seven/02082007/tv/ranch_y_language_on_imus_tv_don_kaplan.htm).

[edit] Nickname?

Some blogs call Matthews "Tweety". Is this a reference to the Warner Brothers cartoon character Tweety Bird? How did Matthews come by this nickname? Is it a reference to some particular incident? 65.29.71.69 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, because of the yellow hair (feathers), pudgy cheeks, and wide, staring eyes.Lestrade 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I believe the former site Media Whores Online reported in the early 2000s that Hardball's production staff nicknamed him 'Tweety' because he dyes his hair the color of Tweety Bird. Zrusilla (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of image

Why was the image removed?

It failed under Wikipedia:Fair use. It was an example of counterexample (things that aren't fair use) #8: "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like." There was no other rationale for the retention of this fair use image. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthews entry needs cleanup

This biographical piece needs to be cleaned up, IHMO. There is a large bio gap between about 1970 to 2005 which does not identify what C. Matthews was doing and when. The paragraph about where he was able to be invited to be a commencement speaker is fluff, not meat. Where is the meat?

One sentence implies that there is a relationship between his getting married and some subsequent jobs. If the marriage helped him get through the door versus doing it on his own may be interesting gossip, but otherwise, so what?

What was his undergraduate degree? Did Matthews get any kind of degree at UNC? His MSNBC bio does not say. Why not ask him?

I have not paid any Abramoff connection. If this is real, I think it would be good to know about. If there isn't anything to this, then it should go to a someone's personal rant blog.

Metthews' NSNBC bio brags that he received 15 honorary degrees. I find it amusing that someone would brag about getting a string of degrees that he did not actually earn. Maybe this explains why when he intervews someone he immediately interrupts them to tell everyone what he thinks. Maybe there is a mirror offstage so he can watch himself? WWFleming 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC) WWF WWFleming 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no "controversies" section for Chris Matthews?

This guy shouted down and kicked Michelle Malkin off his show in 2004, and he sandbagged Ann Coulter with an "unexpected" call from Elizabeth Edwards just a couple weeks ago. Why is this not allowed to be posted about him?

Bill O'Reilly has a "controversies and criticisms" section. Why doesn't this Democrat commentator?

See the "Hardball with Chris Matthews" article. Both incidents are listed there. Paisan30 (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate.

The same line "He has worked for four Democratic politicians" is listed twice virtually one paragraph apart from each other. I'll take one out. 68.36.209.45 13:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The References section

I think that the references in the article can use some major improvements. Currently all there is to it is a bunch of URLs and one properly formated link, though that one isn't given a note in the text. Any takers? Sarnalios 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

The size of this section devoted solely to his criticism of Hillary Clinton is way out of proportion to the rest of the article. This is clearly an example of recentism. This section should be trimmed down significantly eventually. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not recentism. This is notable information, as Matthews has made news with his opposition to Clinton. Just because it happened recently does not mean that it's not significant in Matthews' public career, and in the campaign itself. Paisan30 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that there was nothing on this until a week ago when you added it tells me it is. There should be something about it, but more along the lines of 2 or 3 sentences. But we can wait and see what others think. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't getting press coverage until a week ago. Yes, it's a recent story, but not "recentism". Paisan30 (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hillary Clinton controversy section in my opinion seems to violate the NPOV guideline. For example, describing the result of the New Hampshire primary as a "stunning upset" for Clinton sounds like it was taken straight from one of Mark Penn's memos, considering Clinton had a large in New Hampshire, saw it shrink, then claimed "upset" because most polls happened to be dead wrong. In addition, the next several sentences paint Clinton as a victim of some media conspiracy to defame her, and paint her in an unnecessarily sympathetic way. I'm not saying Matthews' comments shouldn't be discussed, but it looks to me like this article is being used as a means for promoting Hillary Clinton. (134.53.168.17 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

I have added the fact that Clinton's NH win was a surprise and contrary to the polls. The portion about the Air America stuff is potentially confusing without this information. The reader needs to know why the subject of voters being motivated by media coverage would come up in the first place. At the time everyone was trying to explain the disparity between the polls and the election results, and this is not something that one can assume the reader would know. I deleted the fact that Matthems was hosting the coverage since the coverage of the election cannot be expected to be a factor influencing the election and is therefore not germane. OckRaz (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I wrote most of the section, and that is the first time I've ever been accused of promoting Hillary Clinton - publicly or privately. I changed the "stunning upset" thing, as it was added after I wrote the section. The rest of it is factual and relates to Matthews. Paisan30 (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to go. It fails the criteria of undue weight provisions of Wikipedia policy. It's also not terribly informative, accurate or NPOV. I concur it is recentism, as months/years from now, the section would seem even more odd than it does today. JPotter (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to insert a phrase mentioning the media matters matthews website is itself full of weasel words and pov. I don't care if we keep the overall section but I checked that chris matthews watch and the thing is pretty riddled with unciteable fluff. So I will use that link as the ref to the POV probs etc. but I will use neutral language best as I can. 208.100.144.69 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should be deleted. It has no purpose to be included in what is supposed to be an unbiased biography of Chris Matthews. I watch him every day and he was no biased against Hillary Clinton. These accusations that keep popping up are from those pro-Clinton supporters that don't seem to realize that when you are on top, people are more critical of you. Obama is considered to be the front runner and he is getting G.W. Bush, McCain AND BOTH Clinton's attacking him and no one is coming to his defense. Where is Media Matters now? Chris Matthews is a upfront, unbiased, smart anchor who deserves to be known as such and his bio should not be tainted with such biased opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.113.114 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems only one editor keeps reverting the good faith edit to remove the section. Seems the consensus still favors removal. Anon editors count. JPotter (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I give up. Do what you want with it. I will say that deleting it completely does not seem right. Matthews is one of the major symbols of the media's perceived bias towards Obama. Paisan30 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary Doctorates

This sentence is poorly written. Matthews was the commencement speaker at the University of South Carolina on May 5, 2006, where his wife was awarded an Honorary Doctorate; the next day his wife was the commencement speaker, and she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate. Is it true that they were both commencement speakers? Was he a commencement speaker _because_ his wife was to be awarded an Honorary Doctorate? What's the story? 74.134.102.134 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Info, Should Be Deleted

Just stumbled across this one under his political career:

"Chris Matthews considering campaigning for president in the election of 2008 and will be selected by John McCain as his Vice President in the '08 vote." If this is true, I need to see a source. Somebody edit or delete. 66.25.114.5 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal?

I added the liberal to his first line because on every other news commentator who is Conservitive it is noted. People, please label liberals as much as you want to label the conservitives. It would only be "fair". fireminer

I'm not certain that such a label is entirely appropriate for Matthews. Regarding the justification put forward by the contributor of the word; people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are obviously unequivocally right-wing conservatives(and they would proudly apply the labels to themselves), whereas Matthews does not clearly represent any particular ideology. He did vote for Bush in 2000. Most liberals I know think he's a conservative, most conservatives I know think that he's a liberal. I'm removing the word unless some consensus can be reached, or someone can provide a source for Matthews describing himself as a "liberal." --68.149.181.145 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Social effect

Have there been any studies made on Matthews' deleterious effect on etiquette? His chronic unbreakable habit of interrupting and talking over other speakers seems to have spread throughout society because people have a tendency to imitate what they see on television (monkey see, monkey do). Thanks to Matthews, it is now considered permissible and acceptable to interrupt anyone at any time. On some tv shows, there are sometimes two or three people who all talk at once, resulting in an unintelligible cacophony.Lestrade (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade