The Hardball Guide to Professionalism

I suppose if I ever want to join Young Ezra Klein on Chris Matthews' prestigious guest list, I probably shouldn't draw attention to Chris Matthews' odd bout of on-air sexual harassment here:

That comes to me via Jessica Valenti who also offers links to discussion from Shakespear's Sister, the Carpetbagger Report, and Media Matters.

It's hard to understand what must be going through Matthews' head as he decides this is a good way to behave while on the air. He's been doing the show for years now; he's no novice to the genre. One can only assume he's just become so accustomed to the accountability-free zone that is being a cable news host -- after all, listening to Matthews talk has never been a knowledge-enhancing activity, and yet he has this successful TV career -- that his mental filters have atrophied or something. It's not the first sexist episode we've seen from Matthews by any means, but it's possible the most bizarre.

Comments

This incident and then the fawning fan-drooling for GWB and his superior conservative mind leave me believing that Chris has lost it or has found the Scotch stash..........

Posted by grumbles | August 15, 2007 9:30 AM

"I suppose if I ever want to join Young Ezra Klein on Chris Matthews' prestigious guest list..."

Somehow, I don't think that would be a good forum for you...

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 9:33 AM

Sorry MY, but as disgusting as that event was, it wasn't half as bad as what transpired just a minute prior, where Burnett claimed that China is doing the U.S. a service by selling us food that kills our pets and toys that retard the mental development of our children.

Because that keeps prices down. And, between my child's brain, my pet's life, and low prices...I'd choose low prices every time. Wouldn't you? THANKS CHINA!

When she said this, I was shocked, but Matthews didn't even blink, didn't even ask a follow-up...just glide along to the next topic. Cause its not like that's a controversial statement worth investigating. Nah.

Posted by mop | August 15, 2007 9:37 AM

Mark Kleiman has the transcript here

Posted by mop | August 15, 2007 9:38 AM

That is so creepy. He often comes off as a sexist, but apparently, having not been called on it by MSNBC, is now emboldened to do something outright disgusting. They really need to reprimand him, make him apologize, and fire him if he does anything like that again.

Posted by RaymondA | August 15, 2007 9:38 AM

"after all, listening to Matthews talk has never been a knowledge-enhancing activity"

Strongly disagree.

I find Matthews contemptible for a wide variety of reasons, but whatever the voluminous catalog of his sins, he still puts on the only essential cable show for knowledge-enhancing purposes.

If you want to spend an hour picking up the daily beltway zeitgeist via the idiot box, his is the show to watch.

(And I'm not joking when I say that I think he's contemptible. If I were to encounter him in an airport, he's the only TV personality I'd bother spitting on. I'd let Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly go by while spitting on Matthews. Unlike the others, he knows better. He's an apostate, and that's worse than someone who's never seen the light in the first place.)

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 9:40 AM

I'm confused. Burnett doesn't look like a middle-aged Republican running for office, how could Matthews be aroused?

Posted by Njorl | August 15, 2007 9:41 AM

He's been really into physicality and bodies as of late - saying, for example, that Obama and Edwards looked "small" and "skinny" after the AFL-CIO Forum, and wondering aloud about why there wasn't a "big, beefy alternative to Hillary Clinton," "an every-way big guy," in the race.

It's pretty gross, and (obviously) completely irrelevant.

Posted by Will | August 15, 2007 9:42 AM

That wasn't harassment - that was comic genius. "Hardball with David Brent."

Posted by Tim | August 15, 2007 9:46 AM

The weird thing about Matthews is that from what I recall, back when I still watched cable news, he was the only prominent talking head/pundit who was vocally anti-Iraq-war as far back as early 2002. He would frequently rail about the neo-cons were railroading the country into a pointless war, and he was doing it every night on a prominent cable news show. It seems odd that someone with a record like that on Iraq would be such a jerk about so many other things.

Posted by Haggai | August 15, 2007 9:50 AM

"It seems odd that someone with a record like that on Iraq would be such a jerk about so many other things."

Ever heard of Pat Buchanan? Or Ron Paul?

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 9:53 AM

Well, you have to admit she's pretty hot.

Posted by D.S. | August 15, 2007 9:55 AM

Ever heard of Pat Buchanan? Or Ron Paul?

True enough, although in their cases it's consistent with their particular brands of paleo-conservatism or libertarianism. What I meant vis-a-vis Matthews is that for someone who isn't always easy to pin down on the ideological spectrum, he got Iraq far more right than anyone else with an equally prominent position within the media, but that somehow doesn't prevent him from screwing the pooch on so many other things.

Posted by Haggai | August 15, 2007 9:58 AM

It seemed like he was desperate to interrupt her from the heresy that not everyone should own their own home, and the first thing that popped into his head for the purpose was to make the "demean through compliments" sexist play.

Posted by soonermick | August 15, 2007 10:04 AM

"he got Iraq far more right than anyone else with an equally prominent position within the media"

No doubt.

-----

Matthews is almost unique in the political press in being a nonpartisan Republican.

There are plenty of partisan Republicans like George Will or Brit Hume, and plenty of nonpartisan Democrats. But Matthews is unusual in being a media Republican with no inclination to parrot the party line.

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 10:05 AM

Sexist? Yes, but what man isn't? I don't know about the public at large but most guys I know (all professional, educated, sometimes married pigs) look at a woman and think "Would I do her?" If you have a dick, a pulse and think pussy ranks second to damn few pleasures in the world then looking at an attractive woman produces that response. Matthews verbalizes what nearly every guy on the planet feels and gets strafed for it. It's bullshit. For instance, I just finished a vacation. Sat in a diner with my back to a street window, my girlfriend looking out onto the avenue. She asked me "Does every guy look at every girl's ass that walks by? I ask because I'm watching three businessmen leaning on a rail and all of them look right at the ass of every woman that passes on the street." Duh. Not only are they looking at their asses but their undressing them, screwing them and lightring the after sex cigarette. What did some study find, men think about sex every 5-1/2 seconds? Sounds about right. Matthews is one of the guys. So what?

Posted by steve duncan | August 15, 2007 10:12 AM

"Sat in a diner with my back to a street window, my girlfriend looking out onto the avenue."

You actually brought a blow-up doll to a diner?

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 10:15 AM

Mop is correct that what Burnett said was more shocking, but of course Matthews didn't blink. He wasn't listening to her at all, just saying "yeah, yeah" while mindlessly ogling.

Posted by KCinDC | August 15, 2007 10:17 AM

Great point Steve. Boys will be boys I guess. I mean, what's wrong with this?

Posted by ed | August 15, 2007 10:19 AM

Matthews is one of the guys. So what?

...

Well, putting aside for a minute whether what you're talking about is good and acceptable, or for that matter even as common as you seem to think, there's a difference between watching strangers and commenting, on the air, out loud, on the appearance of someone who is trying to make a point while you're supposed to be addressing that point. Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by Cyrus | August 15, 2007 10:19 AM

No Petey, I save more special occasions for them, say a trip to a drive in movie or maybe a camping excursion. At least they can't complain about being ogled.

Posted by steve duncan | August 15, 2007 10:20 AM

Re Petey

"Matthews is almost unique in the political press in being a nonpartisan Republican."

Since Mathews worked for former House Speaker Tip O'Neill back in the 1980s, when did he become a Republican?

Posted by SLC | August 15, 2007 10:26 AM

In a way, even though trying to flirt on air with a cute correspondent (admit it, she IS a total babe) is appalling already, even worse is how horribly clumsy and bad Matthews was at it. It's something I don't quite get. Matthews and even O'Reilly, whatever you say about them, are prety charismatic, articulate guys. And yet I wholly agree with a description I saw on another blog of Matthews as someone's creepy drunk uncle at a wedding, and O'Reilly's falafel problems are well-documented. What gives?

Posted by jonathan | August 15, 2007 10:27 AM

OT

Just something I noticed:

Wouldn't that be weird if sometime, well between 6am and 12 midnight eastern standard time, during a weekday, basically no one posted a comment to Eschaton?

Or during three hours- same period of time- there were only twelve or so comments on Political Animal?

This would be consistent with the vast majority the regular commenters on sites like that belonging to a single, coordinated source. Any other explanation for most of the commenters disappearing would be much less likely. After all, we already know that Republican campaign staff put on a fake (so-called) "middle class riot" in Florida in 2000, and posed as fake gay rights demonstrators outside majority black polling places. Why couldn't they put fake liberals on the Internet?

Just saying.

Posted by Swan | August 15, 2007 10:29 AM

Is Matthews really a Republican? Seems like it would be easy to check, voter registrations are usually public records, but that's a bit much effort for a blog comment.

By the way, there's nothing weird about having the right political views and being an asshole. Just like there's nothing weird about having the wrong political views and being a nice guy. Do you give your friends political quizzes before you'll hang out with them?

Posted by too many steves | August 15, 2007 10:35 AM

"Since Mathews worked for former House Speaker Tip O'Neill back in the 1980s, when did he become a Republican?"

After he made the jump to journalism in the late '80's. I'd guess his partisan move came somewhere in the mid-90's. He voted for Bush in '00.

There's a fascinating moment in Tanner '88 which takes place during a cocktail party of Dem strategists and journalists. Sidney Blumenthal is holding court to an approving crowd, with the lone exception of Matthews, who sits apart from the crowd with a sneer on his face, basically dripping contempt.

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 10:37 AM

Limbaugh called it Chris Matthews' "Joe Namath moment", which gets it about right.

Posted by Chris | August 15, 2007 10:37 AM

"Is Matthews really a Republican? Seems like it would be easy to check, voter registrations are usually public records"

Voting registration is not relevant. Bill O'Reilly makes hay out of the fact that he's registered as an independent.

Matthews voted for Bush in '00, and makes no secret of the fact that he's a Giuliani man for '08. His brother has been on the GOP ticket for lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, which seems to play some part in his partisan movement.

Pinning down Matthews ideologically is actually quite useful for understanding the essence of educated white ethnic Northeastern Republicans.

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 10:43 AM

Voting for a Republican once doesn't make the person a Republican. Hell, if that were true, my vote for Hillary in '06 would make me a Democrat.

Posted by Al | August 15, 2007 10:45 AM

O'Reilly WAS a Republican

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030001

He changed it after he got caught lying about it.

Posted by jonathan | August 15, 2007 10:52 AM

"Voting for a Republican once doesn't make the person a Republican."

No doubt. But if you watch Matthews with any regularity, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's a Republican.

As stated above, I don't think he's a partisan Republican in how he sees his mission. But I do think it's pretty clear that he identifies with Republicans over Democrats.

Posted by Petey | August 15, 2007 10:53 AM

> Is Matthews really a Republican? Seems like it
> would be easy to check, voter registrations are
> usually public records, but that's a bit much
> effort for a blog comment.

Funny how people who live in states that require voters to register a party affiliation (an abhorrent concept to me) assume that all states in the US do that. Which is not the case.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 15, 2007 11:01 AM

He's not listening to her. Just looking. Why does he have a job?

Posted by judson | August 15, 2007 11:05 AM

Pinning down Matthews ideologically is actually quite useful for understanding the essence of educated white ethnic Northeastern Republicans.

True.

Posted by sangfroid826 | August 15, 2007 11:11 AM

I'd like to 2nd (3rd?) mop. I rarely catch Matthews because I never get home from work that early, but I did happen to catch this exchange.

The more shocking thing isn't Matthews weirdness, it was that we got a pretty honest glimpse into the thinking of a large and influential group of people. Of course people that can't afford homes shouldn't buy homes, but she was so smug about it, with a 'the uppity peasants are getting what they deserve' air.

But wtf was that about poisonous toys are better than slightly more expensive toys? It's like the moral aspect of that comparison couldn't even fit into her comprehension. That shit was crazy!

My theory is she inadvertently publicized some elite thinking and Matthews received orders over his earpiece to run a distraction.

Posted by matthew c | August 15, 2007 11:11 AM

MY theory is she inadvertently publicized some elite thinking and Tweety was too stupid to pick up on it.

Posted by bird | August 15, 2007 11:26 AM

He may not be a Republican in a literal sense, but the visceral dislike he has diplayed for the Clinton's and Al Gore for the past decade-plus makes his true feelings on the Dem Party (excepting of course his wet-dream beefy Dems who smell like Aqua Velva) pretty clear.

And he has a long history of being VERY sexist is his discussions/comments about Hilary Clinton (see Howler).

Posted by Andruw | August 15, 2007 11:54 AM

Petey wins the thread, steve duncan's blowing it for us closet misogynists who just want to ogle women and hump blow-up dolls in peace. MR. MATTHEWS, MR. DUNCAN: KEEP IT UNDER WRAPS! What of Hillary?! WHAT IF THE FEMINAZIS WIN!?!?!? They'll send us to a gulag, where we'll HAVE to go gay. I call dibs on Tucker Carlson. Rrrraoow!

Posted by Gregorio | August 15, 2007 12:33 PM

Matthews' comments to the female reporter in this clip are certainly inappropriate, given the context, but I'm not sure how "sexist" they are. If Matthews made a comment that implied that, say, only a man could be a *real* expert in economics, that would be sexist. But I don't see how by calling a woman 'beautiful' or a 'knock-out' one thereby makes a sexist comment. I mean, if a man in a bar approaches a woman and says to her, "I think you're really beautiful. You are a knock-out," that is not sexist (right?). Matthews was not in a bar, so his comments were inappropriate--but I don't see how they were sexist.

Posted by Ari | August 15, 2007 12:46 PM

Don Imus has reportedly settled with CBS and will be looking for a new gig. Maybe he can take over the show.

Posted by CJColucci | August 15, 2007 12:48 PM

They are "sexist in effect if not intent" because they demonstrate that a woman cannot be evaluated on the strength of her ideas alone without her physical appearance supervening. Is it offensively sexist? I wouldn't know; I can't watch the clip because the castrating, withholding b*@%$es at my work won't provide me with speakers for my computer!

Posted by Gregorio | August 15, 2007 12:51 PM

This is not really related, but we're having the outside of our house painted, and the painters have generally been there while I was at work except for this past Saturday, when I was trying to make myself a sandwich for lunch in the kitchen and I looked up and saw a painter's naked (male) torso in the window as he was painting. Since he was in decent shape, this was not gross on aesthetic grounds, but still made me uncomfortable enough that I retreated to another part of the kitchen to make my sandwich. Mr. JMS left the kitchen altogether when he was making his sandwich.

Although I was in fact curious to look a little more closely, it felt tacky to even give the slightest impression of ogling this guy, so I averted my eyes, finished making my sandwich, and left. I did wonder, though, guys, if you had a crew of young women painting your house in say bikini tops, and you saw one through the window, what would you do? And would it be different if your wife were home?

Posted by JMS | August 15, 2007 1:40 PM

You actually brought a blow-up doll to a diner?

Would Feck really be out of place hosting a cable news show?

Posted by peter | August 15, 2007 1:53 PM

Let's just say, JMS, that I'd be painting the inside of my pants a different color! wink, wink

PS: I'm heterosexual, see?!

Posted by Gregorio channeling steve duncan | August 15, 2007 2:36 PM

Have to agree with Steve Duncan, that's the way a lot of men are wired. I think we'd all agree that sexual identity is an orientation not a preference, so its hard to fault Matthews for leering at Burnett, he was born that way.

The problem I have is that is that its crass for a manager or high status employee to pick on a lower status employee. Matthews is higher up the totem pole than Burnett, its not to cool to tease someone unless they have the power to tease back.

As for the comments on her looks, so what? Its no worse than picking on someone for their age or for complimenting a man on his looks (which he has with both Edwards and Romney). Besides, the only reason he was buttering Burnett up at that point was because he had just played her for a fool on-camera.

Posted by beowulf | August 15, 2007 4:51 PM

Uhm, let's see, Matt just the other day was talking about how worrying about stupid remarks from columnists and other pointless distractions from serious issues was counterproductive.

Hmmm...

(Arsenio Hall moment...)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 16, 2007 12:03 AM

I just reviewed the video.

Christ, what a waste of time that was.

THAT was "sexual harassment"? What we call Matthews ogling her tits? Rape?

Pardon the expression, but bitch, please...

A stupid joke, maybe, that initial bit about getting closer to the camera. I have no way of telling what Matthews was trying to do. But the rest of the comments seemed to me to be an attempt to assuage her reaction that her appearance was somehow defective when his joke fell flat.

The whole thing was ridiculous, but so is the reaction on this blog. There must be plenty of stuff you can find on Matthews (starting with his whole "I'm louder than you" bluster method of interviewing) to criticize him for than this nonsense.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 16, 2007 12:10 AM

Matthews is a douche who likes to ogle/embarrass attractive female talking heads but Burnett is also a tool.

BURNETT: -- and all those creative types of mortgages. And you could say that's a good thing, but, you know, Chris, I guess just to throw it out there and, you know, be provocative, but also ask a fair question -- you know, maybe not everybody is able to own a home. We like to think of owning a home as a right in this country.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

BURNETT: It might not be.

Posted by Burnett hates the American Dream | August 16, 2007 2:04 AM

I am actually homosexual. Sometimes I pretend to ogle the female guests to establish my heterosexual bona fides.

Posted by Chris Matthews | August 16, 2007 2:12 AM

When you seen Burnett on the floor of the stock exchange, she's not that hot.

Posted by Rich | August 16, 2007 2:48 AM

oyekdp kzbext rosaqfuy brgmoj rlqfnojbe aqhbxuyl fyiruwnp

Posted by kbae wiqr | August 27, 2007 5:00 AM