Have you read Media Matters article against MSNBC? WOW!

[napi21]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=h_top

At the end of his rant, Scarborough insisted, "This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign."
Scarborough got that part right. This isn't about Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is about a consistent pattern of misogynistic comments by Chris Matthews. Comments about and directed toward a variety of women. A consistent pattern of Matthews objectifying women. And a consistent pattern of MSNBC looking the other way.

(clip)

It's about things like a male MSNBC host describing a woman running for president as "shrill" (and "very shrill") and asking, "hat about her housekeeping skills?" Those were Joe Scarborough, too.

(clip)
But this isn't about political gain. This isn't about one comment about Hillary Clinton, or even 30 comments about Hillary Clinton: This is about Chris Matthews' pattern of inappropriate treatment of women, and about MSNBC's continued acceptance of it. It's about things like a male journalist doing a mocking "impersonation" of the women who host The View - an impersonation that featured a high-pitched, whiny voice.

(clip)
And then there's MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, who has described Hillary Clinton as "whining" and suggested the reason there are so few women in Congress is that "most women are so sensible, they don't want to get involved in something as stupid as politics" and said of Clinton, "hen she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs," and described her as "castrating, overbearing, and scary." (MSNBC can't say they didn't know what they were getting when they hired Carlson; before joining the cable channel, he said women "want to be spanked vigorously every once in a while" and told Elle magazine that Clinton is his "guilty fantasy," explaining: "Every time I see her I think I could, you know, help. ... She seems tense.")

Take the time to read the whole article. MM covered the whole MSNBC STORY much better than I ever could, and I'm not permitted to post all the points here. (Max 4 paragraphs.)

[kikiek]

1. Yea if she was a man they'd love her. She'd be tough, decisive, authoritative,

strong, assertive. The list could go on. I saw that and I applaud Media Matters for recognizing the prejudice that exists.

[Kittycat]

2. Yet MSNBC is still host to one of the most progressive news shows on TV.

And I'll continue watching it. KO has done more for the progressive cause than any of the other news stations out there. Now they've brought on Maddow, in support of other left leaning pundits, and truth be told - their reporting is spot on. I refuse to boycott the station, because of the other nutbags. Every station has them, and if we're going to start having fits and faux outrage, let's start with Fox. They've done more harm to the left than anything anyone has ever said or done on MSNBC (and yet I do still disagree with some of the recent happenings).

[napi21]

3. Oh, I don't want to boycot the network! I don't think MM said thet either!

I think it wouldn't hurt to give NBC a KIA over the offensive employees though. I too watch KO every night and I love Rachel. They invite John Dean on a few shows and Professor Turley too. They are all terrific!

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Au contraire ....... keep the pressure on them

They've clearly decided that leaning left is in their best interest. Leaning left is why they're catching Faux in some time slots and demos.

We need to pressure them to muzzle and despittle Tweety and cut Joe's nuts off at the base of his dick and turn his scrotum inside out.

And Steve Capus needs to get the message Loud and Clear.

[Kittycat]

8. And Schuster?

What shall we do with him?

IMO, I think he needs his time out, but I do want him back - even if he's licking his wounds.

[Freida5]

5. I have been complaining about the General Electric sexist media personalities

especially the MSNBC OBAMA Brigaid for some time now. I am glad to see this is just not my paranoia acting up again. Thank you Media Matters.

[rpannier]

6. Allow me to help a little

On February 4, Matthews led a panel discussion of what the Associated Press described as Clinton's "emotional reunion Monday with a colleague from the early days of her legal career as a child advocate." The discussion featured a suggestion that Clinton had cried on purpose in order to win votes the next day, a statement by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson that "with some people it's sad movies ... with Hillary Clinton ... it's an impending primary. It just breaks her down." Even Chris Matthews seemed to understand that something might not be quite right about the obsessive focus on Clinton showing emotion; near the end of the discussion, he said, "I wonder what we're focusing more on this than we would if it were a male candidate."

On May 30, 2005, Matthews asked retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When McCaffrey responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When McCaffrey responded, "No," Matthews said: "No problem? No problem? No problem?" McCaffrey answered, "Absolutely not. None."

Most recently, David Shuster said on the February 7 edition of Tucker that "there's just something a little bit unseemly" about Chelsea Clinton contacting super delegates on behalf of her mother, adding, "oesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Shuster first claimed to have praised Chelsea Clinton on Tucker: "I said a lot of wonderful things about Chelsea. I praised her; I said Americans should be proud of her. ... as I said last night, everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton." In fact, Shuster had not said Americans should be proud of her, or that "everybody, all of us, love Chelsea Clinton." Not even close.

[Freida5]

7. It would be great if women boycotted advertisers on NBC and GE affliates.

[stillcool]

9. and people are surprised?

People rant and rave about the media...and rightfully so...but act so surprised when things are mis-represented, when outright lies are told, when critical events happen and not a peep is mentioned. And now, people are surprised and outraged as if this hasn't been going on for...well for my lifetime. I understand watching it for entertainment value, but I no longer expect to get apples from a pear tree. In my mind watching this stuff and accepting it as even close to reality is the problem.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Yes, it's great. nt