Talk:Chris Matthews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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?

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!

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)

Is Matthews At All Troubled That The Liberal Media Just Stole A Presidential Election?

If anyone can any quotes to support this, please cite them here and in the article.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Removal of criticism about Matthews

I wish that people would quit removing evidence that cites 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 generally 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Um, if you are going to include some mild controversies on the page - and you do - where is the now-infamous "thrill going up my leg" quote??? I believe people will still be quoting it one day, particularly if Obama becomes President.Cbflagginc (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Here's at least one citation, from an academic and law professor, that parenthetically labels Matthews a "liberal." It may not satisfy afficionados of Daily Kos, but may suffice for lesser mortals.

Fish, Stanley (February 10, 2008). "A Calumny a Day To Keep Hillary Away". Thing Again. New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-18. Chris Matthews, a liberal warhorse, is obviously in love with [Obama] {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

--AndersW (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though this source is published by the New York Times, it does come from an opinion blog and it would be best to explicitly attribute the labeling to Stanley Fish. Switzpaw (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And if that's the case, we have to establish that this person is worthy of being used as a source for this sort of thing. It appears that he's a teacher; what are his credentials insofar as American political coverage is concerned? Warren -talk- 10:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I think you're giving him far too much credit. I highly doubt he started the trend, and his cultural reach certainly isn't large enough spread the trend. Television personalities like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Rielly are far more invasive with their interruptions. They're just not as, for lack of a more tactful term, LOUD as Chris Matthews is. And since the recent criticism against him in the blogosphere and that New York Times Magazine hatchet job profile, he's made a serious effort to work on some of his less attractive qualities. -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If anything, he now interrupts with total impunity. You can see him building to an interruption if his guest talks for more than 35 seconds. Even Neil Cavuto, who was a polite and courteous newscaster, has joined Matthews' trend and will interrupt a guest without hesitation.Lestrade (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Chris Matthews' job behind the scenes?

What is Chris Matthews' rank on the corporate ladder at NBC News? I ask because Tim Russert was the Washington Bureau Chief of NBC News, as well as being an on-air journalist. After Tim Russert's death, David Shuster hinted at the NBC News hierarchy on air when he said that Tim Russert wasn't his boss. Instead, he said that Chris Matthews was his boss. --JHP (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthews appearance on Morning Joe

Is this notable? Also, does anyone else have a reliable sources concern to this recently added edit: On November 6, 2008, on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," he stated that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." When asked whether that was job as a journalist, he stated "Yeah, that's my job." In response to his description of journalist's duties, Time Magazine managing editor Richard Stengel stated that journalists had a constitutional duty to "hold [the President of the United State's] feet to the fire." <ref>http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/11/chris-matthews.html</ref><ref>http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673</ref>

• Western Standard blog doesn't seem to be a reliable secondary source
• Primary source (TV clip) doesn't belong there

We need a reliable secondary source to show that this appearance is notable with respect to his career. Any Joe Hater can snip a quote from Matthews and write about it in their blog, doesn't mean it merits inclusion in the Wikipedia article. Switzpaw (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "reliable secondary source," the both references included in the edit contain primary sources (aka video) of Mr. Matthews' statement portrayed in their complete context. Given that Mr. Matthews has a significant profile amongst journalists, that he has opined on different occassions regarding his visceral (and positive) reaction to Barack Obama's oratary, and that the United States Constitution protects freedom of the press, it is significant to learn that a journalist believes that his role is to insure the success of a presidency rather than to treat it skeptically. 216.234.203.145 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read why reliable secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. You might also be surprised to know that Wikipedia is a tertiary source of secondary sources. While you may find Matthews' comment on Morning Joe interesting and worthwhile in forming your own opinion on Matthews as a journalist, the Wikipedia article must be balanced and consider how secondary sources are treating this comment. This determination of due weight is the only way we can logically keep a neutral point of view. Switzpaw (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read that section. In relevant part, the section provides "[p]rimary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction)." By analogy, a recording of Mr. Matthews' statements is a reliable source for a summary of his statement, and the wikipedia article you linked to is a reliable source for a summary of its contents. The sections you continue to delete do not contain interpretation and instead summarize Mr. Matthews' statements while providing the reader a link to the primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas williams (talk • contribs) 02:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the entire corpus of episodes of Matthews' show and appearances in interviews can be cited as primary sources. Where is the reliable secondary source to demonstrate that Matthews' particular statement on Morning Joe is noteworthy, other than a comment from a right-wing blog out of Western Canada? Switzpaw (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the basis for your description of just ONE of the two previously cited sources as a "right-wing blog" (other than your ipse dixit opinion)? Nonetheless, here are a few additional sources: (1) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/chris_matthews_leg_tingle_goes.html; (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/chris-matthews-i-want-to_n_141768.html; (3) http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?id=20805&section=67; (4) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/06/odd-job-matthews-says-his-role-make-obama-presidency-success; (5) http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/11/back-to-normal.html; (6) http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=313438; (7) http://www.lifenews.com/nat4552.html; (8) http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/026867.php.Lucas williams (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia page for Western Standard and read a few entries of the Shotgun blog to gauge its bias. This isn't rocket science.. Now that you have an assortment of references, which one(s) do you think are the most mainstream and credible? I would not be opposed to the inclusion of the material if it was written appropriately (i.e. explicitly denoted as criticism with the publication attributed). I'd also like to note that Matthews' Obama favoritism is already noted in that article, and there is already a sentence that he is criticized by conservative watchdog groups like Newsbusters. So please, add what you think is notable and attribute that criticism to a reliable secondary source, but please don't let a biographical article turn into a page of sprawling criticism because you yourself were outraged by something he recently said on TV. Switzpaw (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The nature of your position is unclear to me. First, and most importantly, the exiting criticism of Mr. Matthews relates to his alleged favoritism during the 2008 presidential campaign. The material I tendered, quoted directly from Mr. Matthews' appearance and statements on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," indicate that Mr. Matthews intends to assist the Obama presidency be a success. Those are quite different. Second, it appears that you have formed an opinion regarding ONE of MANY cited sources and, without citation to any sources, lumped them into a category of sources that you appear to denigrate. Third, you appear unable to discuss this material without taking cheap shots at me by assuming and asserting that I "am outraged" by something Mr. Matthews' has said. Not only do you not have any basis for that statement, it is patently false. Fourth, I am unaware of the "sprawling criticism" that you have discussed. Are you suggesting that my inclusion of Mr. Matthews' one statement of how he perceives his role as a journalist under the Obama presidency is "sprawling criticism?" Are you suggesting something else? Please explain.Lucas williams (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that I am weary of new editors who may not necessarily be concerned with constructing an article with a long term perspective in mind, and that I why I held your edit to heavy scrutiny. Evaluating the quality of sources is well within the subjective discretion of encyclopedia editors. Now that you have presented a plethora of sources commenting on the material, my position has changed that it may be more noteworthy than it seemed with your initial edit. The purpose of this talk page thread was to seek proof of the notability of said material. No, a single edit does not constitute "sprawling criticism." However, if editors do not carefully consider the guidelines which I referenced in my initial revert, articles dealing with controversial figures do reach that point and the material eventually has to be cleaned out. I'm trying to give you some good advice... :) Switzpaw (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your recent edit: Can you cite the show, like you would if you were writing a paper, instead of linking to Youtube? Fixed. Switzpaw (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say -- well done with the addition of the CNN Reliable Sources TV program. That's a reliable secondary source which ties the new material together. Switzpaw (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

media matters award

Spilling over of discussion from Sean Hannity page here. The notability of the award is in question and thus removed. Docku: What up? 16:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheist

On the template, it says Chris Matthews is an atheist but he is categorised as a Roman catholic. I tried a google search but can't seem to find any article linking Chris Matthews being an atheist. Can someone confirm that, if not remove it from the template. If confirmed, add it as a Category.--203.211.107.15 (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He's probably a Catholic. I don't usually watch his show but I remember watching a clip where said said something about his church and also said that he goes to church every week. I must note, however, that the discussion was not about his religion but he was talking about something else and he was the relating the situation to his life. I would highly doubt he's atheist.

--Pgecaj (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bickering in the Author and talk show host section

Looks like some partisan back-and-forth editing has been going on in here very recently. I'm deleting the latest uncited junk. The dispute box should probably be removed as well... JasonAdama (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Early life, education, and family

Is it proper to site himself as to what his education is? I heard him talking about graduate school. He said that if others had gone to graduate school, [like Obama and himself] that they would understand why Obama has increased the deficit. However if Chris "did graduate work in economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill," what does that mean? He didn't get a degree doing "it." He could have taken only one class and could still claim "he did work." In References #3, that is exactly what is sited as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.249.163 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Degeneres

Shouldn't there be at least some mention as to the times he appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.119.78 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I just added an "unbalanced" template to the article. Roughly half of the text of the article is criticism. This is a major reason that criticism sections are discouraged on Wikipedia -- they tend to attract excessive additions. Note that I am not saying that Matthews doesn't deserve some criticism, but when the entirety of an article begins to be dominated by criticism, things have become unbalanced. Before I start removing or condensing some of the criticism, I wanted to hear from other editors. Or if editors can add some more balance to the article, that might help also. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation Move

Chris Matthews the footballer should have the main Chris Matthews page and this should be moved. If there are no objections I will move in a few days — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a comment suggesting this during Superbowl coverage. However any move should be should be formally requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--agr (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No! In MOST American minds, that would be very unreasonable! MaynardClark (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I would object to this as well. This Chris Matthews is far more notable than the gentleman who plays hand egg. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I know of none of the individuals concerned, however unless one person is famous-outside-their-own-country (which sfaict none of them are) then the disambig page as the main target would be the sensible option, rather than singling out one of the possibles for that (dubious) honour. --AlisonW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm from England, yet I knew about this Chris Matthews because of his time as the Chief of Staff to Tip O'Neill during the Reagan administration. I'd never heard of any other Chris Matthews until the most recent SuperBowl. That said, I've always been interested in politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to see where the football player's page views are once the Super Bowl hype dies down. The commentator historically averaged more daily views, but by a few 100 and not 1000s. At best right now, it an be argued that Chris Matthews (disambiguation) should be the main page. I'd advise to wait a few months.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Matthews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221065111/http://www.thefoxnation.com:80/chris-matthews/2009/12/18/chris-matthews-im-liberal to http://www.thefoxnation.com/chris-matthews/2009/12/18/chris-matthews-im-liberal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)