This is Journalism?
November 15, 2008
by Sheryl Lee
|Does Hardball host Chris Matthews need a refresher course in journalistic ethics?
Appearing on Morning Joe on November 6th, Matthews informed host Joe Scarborough that his job was to help make the Obama presidency work.
MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –
SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.
It is widely assumed that Matthews intends to run as the Democratic candidate from Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate in 2010—a story which Matthews has done nothing to refute. If he now sees his role as a TV news anchor as one that is “helpful” to the Obama government, is this not an explicit and alarming admission of both compromised journalistic integrity and a deep conflict of interest?
Given this latest admission and his well-documented misogyny toward Hillary Clinton, it appears Chris Matthews is at best a loose cannon and at worst an irrational individual whose influence ought to be limited to shock jock morning radio host. It’s bad enough that MSNBC provides him with access to a national audience, but the idea of Matthews running for Senate ought to make all of us nervous.
—o—o—o—
How wrong is Matthews? Check out the following “Elements of journalism” and “Professional and ethical standards” to see how many of the profession’s guidelines Matthews violates:
- Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
- Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
- Its essence is discipline of verification.
- Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
- It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
- It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
- It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
- It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
- Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Professional and ethical standards
Since the development of professional journalism at the beginning of the 20th Century, journalists have been expected to follow a stringent code of journalistic conduct that requires them to, among other things:
- Use original sources of information, including interviews with people directly involved in a story, original documents and other direct sources of information, whenever possible, and cite the sources of this information in reports; (For more information on using sources, see journalism sourcing.)
- Fully attribute information gathered from other published sources, should original sources not be available (not to do so is considered plagiarism; some newspapers also note when an article uses information from previous reports);
- Use multiple original sources of information, especially if the subject of the report is controversial;
- Check every fact reported;
- Find and report every side of a story possible;
- Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;
- Approach researching and reporting a story with a balance between objectivity and skepticism.
- Use careful judgment when organizing and reporting information.
- Be careful about granting confidentiality to sources (news organizations usually have specific rules that journalists must follow concerning grants of confidentiality);
- Decline gifts or favors from any subject of a report, to avoid the appearance of being influenced;
- Abstain from reporting or otherwise participating in the research and writing about a subject in which the journalist has a personal stake or bias that cannot be set aside.
By my count, Matthews falls outside of # 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 in the first list, and the following in the second list:
* Find and report every side of a story possible;
* Report without bias, illustrating many aspects of a conflict rather than siding with one;
* Approach researching and reporting a story with a balance between objectivity and skepticism.
* Use careful judgment when organizing and reporting information.
* Decline gifts or favors from any subject of a report, to avoid the appearance of being influenced (presumed, with his Senate hopes)
* Abstain from reporting or otherwise participating in the research and writing about a subject in which the journalist has a personal stake or bias that cannot be set aside.
The silver lining in the dark cloud that is Chris Matthews is that, unlike someone who’s been allowed to exercise their biases in relative obscurity before running for office, Matthews has provided Americans and Pennsylvanians with plenty of evidence of his unsuitability for Senate.
Is this part of your crusade against Mr. Matthews? Have you contacted Mr. Matthews to ask for a response to your charges or any sort of explanation regarding his comments on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program?
Why do you state that “the idea of Matthews running for Senate ought to make all of us nervous”? What makes me a heck of a lot more nervous would be another run by former Senator Rick Santorum. Now, that idea truly frightens me.
As an aside, while I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Matthews’ comments during the “Morning Joe” segment, I do believe Mr. Matthews is a former recipient of the David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.
I consider your recent blog entry nothing more than your own personal attack on Mr. Matthews and see very little relevance of it to the fundamental mission of this organization.
Dawn C. Thank you.
Unfortunately, I’d venture most who call themselves journalists today are unfamiliar with the content of this iist.
Me thinks that Matthews believes that if he promotes and protect Obama, then the favor will be returned in 2010 in PA!
Mass Media has become a platform for propaganda. You have raised valid points about the major news networks. Check out the others. During the months before the election, Nick, MTV and several other ‘kid’ friendly stations showed the candidates pictures and encouraged the kids to vote. They offered on-line voting for the kids so that their voice could be heard.
So, while I agree that the majors should be counted on to be honest and give the truth with out slant. Brainwashing starts at a young age. Maybe these ‘journalists’ feel like they are telling the truth because, they probably do not know the truth. Or maybe, they just do not want to see the truth.
Terry,
Last I checked Santorum would be running as a Republican and Matthews a Democrat? Am I missing something. Whether or not Matthews runs has no impact on Santorum.
Matthews has a long record of sexist attacks on women on his show. And, no we have not yet received a response to our letter.
Terry,
Given Chris Matthews’ well-documented misogyny, it is our express mission to speak out against his biased journalism. It may appear personal, but our response to sexist media is entirely pragmatic, I assure you, and a legitimate initiative to support better representation of women in politics.
As for “personal”—how does this sound for a personal mission statement:
I will do everything in my power to see that those who perpetuate misogyny in our culture are kept from achieving their goals.
Simple, no? It’s just basic tit-for-tat: those who would keep women from achieving their goals will be paid back in kind.
Personal, and yet pragmatic.
Terry,
Go to youtube and search Chris Matthews sexist and you can watch him in all his misogynistic glory. The point of choosing who represents us in Washington shouldn’t be the “lesser of two evils.” If you want to support a Democratic ticket you can respect then help us get rid of Chris Matthews and make them choose someone who isn’t sexist. We have to clean the misogynists and sexists out of both parties and demand they pick people who respect women or heaven forbid ARE women. I intend to make my voice heard against ANY candidate from ANY party if I decide they are sexist. There is no such thing as an acceptable level of sexism just because you agree with someone’s party position.
Also, whether someone has won an award shouldn’t be relevent. Sean Hannity (not saying he’s sexist) has won several awards including two Marconi’s (the top award for radio) but does that make him a good journalist? Of course not! He is a “personality”, pundit, and political commentator but he certainly would never present himself as a non-partisian journalist. That’s ridiculous! Part of the media problem we have is that journalists want to be pundits instead of journalists. Chris Matthews doesn’t even bother to pretend to be a “journalist” because WE don’t hold them to any standards anymore, and his misogyny isn’t even hidden. We need to say enough is enough with the rampant sexism whether it is on “the other side” or “on my side.”
If they are sexist or misogynist, no one in any party can be “on my side” anymore. I am a woman.
[...] This is Journalism? Given this latest admission and his well-documented misogyny toward Hillary Clinton, it appears Chris Matthews is at best a loose cannon and at worst an irrational individual whose influence ought to be limited to shock jock morning … [...]
Matthews can run and I will personally drive to PA and volunteer to help defeat him. Years ago I watched Matthews all the time, but then became disgusted with him. He pretends to be a jouranlist, but is just another talkinghead and, worse, he lacks integrity and, given his behavior during the primary, has demonstrated himself to be a sexist and misogynst.
The conservatives used to say there was a liberal bias in the media. That sounds like a compliment compared to what they are now – a joke. I enjoyed reading the list of elements, ethics and standards. It seemed distantly familiar. Maybe sometime in the past I may have had a feeling of confidence in what I was reading. There is no reason why journalists should stick to these standards. It seems their job is to sell. They sell people what they want. Do people want real journalism or is that too boring? Would they rather find someone they agree with and hear them rant. I’d be interested to know if they even teach these standards in journalism anymore.
Will The New Agenda give us the opportunity and information to communicate directly with the media our outrage with any misogynistic coverage you bring to our attention? Or a place to report it if we see/read it? Maybe if the media gets some feedback, they will learn that selling sexism isn’t what people want.
Besides bashing Matthews for his relentlessly poor commentary, how about contacting Joe Scarborough to thank him for holding Matthew’s feet to the fire while also encouraging Mr. Scarborough to follow through on his perspective that, as journalists, they should be holding Obama’s feet to the fire, as well. (Better late then never.) I sent Joe a thank you e-mail after that exchange aired. Also sent a mass e-mailing to the press encouraging them to follow in Joe’s footsteps.
PS Per my prior post: I had seen this clip on the PUMApac blog a while back, but the clip was a bit longer. In that clip, Scarborough went on to say that he felt that as journalists, it was their job to “hold Obama’s feet to the fire”. Right on!
Anna,
I will do the same. You are right that we need to remember to let people know when we think they are fabulous too!
Matthews MSNBC cohort: Keith Olbermann is at it again. We all remember his remark about taking Hillary behind closed doors, well his violent thoughts have now transferred to Sarah Palin.
The following is from Anglachel’s Journal:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com.....html#links
” On Wednesday evening, Keith Olbermann was chatting with his “friend,” Margaret Carlson about—what else?—Sarah Palin. Carlson was lounging about the Republican Governors Conference in snowbound Miami:
CARLSON (11/12/08): We’ll always have Sarah Palin, it seems. But here, actually, the governors are wanting to talk about 2010, because the number 2012 is code for talking about Sarah Palin, which was where they do not want to go. Her saying that she doesn’t represent herself, she represents an entire movement that’s going to save the Republican party is just what they quietly don’t want to happen. If they had their way, she wouldn’t be here tomorrow.
OLBERMANN: Wow. I mean, to what degree is that the other prominent Republican governors who got some passing mention during this campaign, with an eye towards 2012—Jindal, Pawlenty, Crist? Is there any sense that any of them are forming a power base behind Palin? Or are they intending to, you know, cut her up like a Roman dictator and smuggle her out under their robes?
CARLSON: Ha, ha. Well, they only say that quietly, Keith.
Sorry, but that’s very strange. A few months ago, Olbermann apologized for picturing Hillary Clinton getting beaten up by a bunch of goons behind locked doors. This week, he was picturing Sarah Palin getting cut up into pieces.
Within moments, he mockingly compared her to Lindsay Lohan—then, to Dizzy Dean.
It’s always surprising to see the way such fellows discuss the women they hate. They seem to find it hard to do so without picturing violence or turning to overt, gender-based derision. In our view, Palin is a remarkably underwhelming figure, in ways which are quite easy to define. You don’t have to compare her to Lohan, or picture her being killed—unless your skills are remarkably weak, or you simply enjoy hating women. But MSNBC has trafficked, for many years, in weird, remarkable woman-loathing. And when it comes to their new uber-star, it seems he’s gotta have it.”
Just want to add;
I don’t agree with Anglachel’s comment;
“In our view, Palin is a remarkably underwhelming figure, in ways which are quite easy to define.”
Why did she have to throw that into the discussion?
Sometimes women are their own worst enemies. I think it;s great Anglachel was condoning KO’s behavior, but couldn’t she have stopped there, without criticizing the victim also?
Sorry, meant CONDEMNING, not condoning!
I see the point she is trying to make, but couldn’t she just have said KO should have attacked Palin on issue, instead of jumping on her back also?
We need to send Greta love notes. I’ve been impressed with her since she started out.
Yes,
we need to start thanking the good journalist, lest they become instinct….
I agree with Anna – we must let affirm those journalists who fight for true and authentic journalism instead of continuing to put up with this pathetic disguise as objective journalism.
In our diappointment and frustration, we must not forget there is so much work to do in order to bring justice back to our electoral (as opposed to “selectoral” system.
Bye Bye Ms. American Pie, this is is the year that Journalism died.
@Renee Wilkes: Nickelodeon has always encouraged kids to think about politics, and held a fake election so that kids could have the experience of participating in democracy. I grew up with it and my generation was excited to vote when we turned 18 instead of being apathetic and thinking it didn’t affect us. I think that’s a good thing.
Terry:
“Have you contacted Mr. Matthews to ask for a response to your charges…”
Amy:
“…no we have not yet received a response to our letter.”
LOLOLOL! Rolling.
*Owned.*
Hmmm….what will we do with him now that we own him?
More laughing?
Robin R,
The passages above, attributed to Anglachel, were in fact written by Bob Somerby and quoted and discussed in Anglachel’s Journal.
mamabroad,
To answer your question since you are new to our site (i think) – The New Agenda is not about words and stories. We are about ACTION!
If you want to be involved in our next steps on this or other matters, please join our group and you will receive action alerts.
JoinTheNewAgenda@yahoo.com
Isn’t this the guy who asked where all the “big state women governors are” implying that there aren’t any because women just can’t do it.
I hope there is someone at The New Agenda who is able to capture videos lest they be lost to scrubbing on u-tube. Perhaps another link along the top bar can be “Archives”. It would be a shame to lose research, evidence, etc.
To those at The New Agenda tracking sexist bs, here are a couple of links for posterity:
http://www.philadelphiaweekly......mmarian”
http://nymag.com/news/politics.....est/52184/
[...] What is his view of journalistic ethics and media bias? [...]
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...