One of the great frustrations about news, be it radio, TV, or paper, is how often we assume the reporter got the facts right about stories we don’t know firsthand but how often they screw up on stories we know about.
I was reminded of this, somewhat obliquely, when I saw this lead on the CampaignDesk website:
CJR Campaign Desk: Archives:
Last night, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, to use Atrios’ words, went “nuclear” on Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush-Cheney strategist and Hardball guest.
Apparently, Matthews was incensed that the RNC would take a clip of his program and edit it down to both simplify his question of a candidate and strip the candidate’s answer of any depth or nuance (and with Kerry, nuance is substance).
So we go from:
MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong in that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war? The way it’s been fought? Along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean, and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”
KERRY: “I am, yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.”
to this:
“Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” and Kerry replying, “I am, yes.”
CampaignDesk makes it clear that Matthews was more upset about his show being used as a political tool than being one himself, as they have noted before. I’m sure it’s too much to hope this could be a trend, but it would be nice if these folks took their jobs as seriously as they take themselves.