by Damozel | At Media Matters, Eric Boehlert discusses the calling out of Chris Matthews by the liberal blogosphere, giving credit where it is due to: Rachel Maddow of Air America, Josh Marshall of TPM, Jamison Foser of Media Matters; Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake; Jeralyn E. Merritt of Talk Left; Pam Spaulding; and Digby. They---and everyone who wrote in to protest Matthews' shameless attempt to (I suppose) influence the vote by parading his atavistic fear of Hillary---deserve a big thank you from those who didn't participate. This is an example of how public action can correct an abuse in the system or the media and there need to be more of it----for the media's own good. The result was an apology from Matthews.
That's good. Matthews needed to be made to apologize and to back off. If you haven't been paying attention, the reasons are summed up here:
Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the scheming, manipulative character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."
Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do." (Media Matters; links in original)
Right. Shut up (about Hillary), Tweety. He has said that he will. Thanks, Netroots and all leading bloggers who encouraged people to write in to the network. As Glenn Greenwald said:
The endless attempts to predict the future and thus determine the outcome of the elections -- to the exclusion of anything meaningful -- is a completely inappropriate role for journalists to play.... It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes.
But here's where I have a problem: the application to all this of the fallacy of "after this---because of this." Boehlert and the others are crediting the misogyny of Matthews for Hillary's win.
Following the New Hampshire media route, Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake wrote "Tweety Did It." At MyDD, Mark Matson coined the phrase "The Tweety Effect," now defined as follows:
1. where the misogyny of a talking head in the MSM so enrages a demographic that they go out and vote in a manner that will put egg on the face of the talking head.
With all due respect to Matson and the others, baloney. That's as problematic in my book as crediting her "melting snowflakes" moment for her win.
Because so many of these bloggers don't really like Hillary much themselves, it doesn't seem to occur to them that Hillary might well be more appealing to average Democrats who don't read blogs than they had imagined. I know a number of Democrats who are Hillary supporters.
Obama has a glitter and charismatic appeal, but---forget all the "proof" that the perception is wrong because most voters don't read blogs---a lot of so-called "average voters", rightly or wrongly, see him as too inexperienced to be president this round and see Hillary as the one with the solid credentials.
They also don't hate Bill Clinton quite as much as some bloggers imagine---the reverse, if anything. And New Hampshire seemed to me (polls or no polls) to be a state that Hillary could win.
While it's true that the media attacks on her just make me feel more on her side, I doubt I'd even have noticed them if I weren't---unlike the majority of Americans--- a media-watching blogger who reads liberal blogs. One of my friends who is planning to vote for Hillary in her state primary didn't even know who Chris Matthews is when I mentioned him.
Reading Boehlert's piece could easily give you the impression that there is evidence to support the claims that the misogynist media single-handedly was responsible for Hillary's win. Is there? If so, I haven't seen it.
I'm not a Hillary or an Obama supporter, though I like them both all right. But I prefer John Edwards to either Obama or Clinton for the reason articulated by HTML Mencken at Sadly, No!: "they are knee-jerk triangulators." I'm sad that people don't recognize that (as HTML says), "[Edwards i] the only one on our side saying the right things on [the economic] front."
But I'm bemused assumption that Hillary couldn't have won New Hampshire under her own steam. Is that really fair to her? Could it be that Hillary is simply under-represented in the self-selected population of people who have time and inclination to respond polls? Or could the media storm directed at her simply have made voters more conscious of the fact that---whatever Chris Matthews & Co. may think---they like her just fine?
As for Matthews, I was offended and angered by his treatment of Hillary---he can criticize her, but he's got no business trying to influence the vote---and I duly responded by adding my teeny voice to the "swarm," as Boehlert calls it. But I still like him for moments like this. I find him cute (when he isn't banging on about the Clintons). And though he helped to highlight the media's disgraceful treatment of Hillary in pursuit of what my colleague calls its Obama worship, it's a bit much to suggest---as some media figures such as Maureen Dowd has done---that Hillary won because people felt sorry for her, a fair implication from his piece.
Boehlert, along with every other media watcher inclined to attribute Hillary's win to Matthews' misogyny, needs to get a grip. While I am solidly behind any movement to shut down the attempts of the arrogant pricks in the media who want to influence the elections, I am going to credit Hillary's New Hampshire win to Hillary.
Memeorandum discusses "the Tweety effect" here.
UPDATE: There's a hilarious piece in Slate (which I learned about via Michael Stickings at TMV). Hart Seeley suggested that rather than require Matthews to apologize to his female guests, he be required to talk to his male guests the way he does to the women. Seeley provides a few examples of what that might sound like:
To Rudy Giuliani: I love the smile. Guys, can we get a tighter shot of his face? Close in on the eyes. Oh, yeah. You're beautiful. You're a dreamboat. You're America's Mayor. I bet Judi took one look at those high beams, and, bam, you were in the sack. Am I right? Look at him! That's a 9-1-1 smile! Dial 9-1-1, somebody! I'm having a heart attack.
To Mitt Romney: Governor, I want to ask you a question, and I suspect that someone out there will fault me for this, but here goes: Do you know that you are absolutely delectable? I'm not just talking Mormon looks. You've got the Catholic look. You've got the Protestant look. After the show, can I have an article of your clothing?
To Barack Obama: So, President Reagan—I mean, senator—how can I ask a question? Look at you. You're Denzel! You're Cuba! You're O.J.! Which could be a problem. But, hey, it's a problem I'd take. I'm supposed to ask a question? OK. How about Iraq? How about health care? How about dinner?
BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Bill Clinton, Pit Bull: A Clinton Campaign Strategy
Economy: Krugman says Obama Less Progressive Than Clinton & Edwards
Choosing the Democratic Nominee: It's a Visceral Thing
Glenn Greenwald on Yesterday's Major Media Misfire
Maureen Dowd's Vicious Attack on Hillary: Internalized Misogyny or Something Much More Basic?
Comments