Lanny Davis vs. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz…
FishbowlDC’s Matt Dornic writes about a dust up between Lanny Davis and some of MSNBC’s prime time hosts… (via J$)
Lanny Davis raised some eyebrows today by calling out a number of high-profile reporters and commentators in an interview on Sirius XM’s P.O.T.U.S. channel. President Clinton’s former special counsel, now partner at Lanny J. Davis & Associates, spoke out for the first time against a series of stories criticizing his professional relationship with two African dictators, directing his remarks at the New York Times and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. “Ms. Maddow went after me as being the defender of dictators and corrupt people and whatever the dark side is,” Davis told Sirius XM’s Joe Mathieu. “So I called the next day to say it would be nice if Ms. Maddow allowed me to offer the other side of the story. And I never heard back. And then I called my friend Ed Schultz, I sent him an email, saying could you have me on to tell my side of the story. And he said, ‘You criticized Rachel Maddow; I’m not having you on anymore.’”
March 2, 2011 at 7:51 am
I don’t think this should really surprise anyone. If we learned anything from KO’s time at MSNBC, it’s that they’re very protective of each other. They have a very strong “hive mentality,” and demand a certain amount of acceptance and respect from their guests (often that means, you must agree with us). If someone offends one of their hosts, they offend ALL of their hosts.
Didn’t this also happen with the KOS guy? I seem to remember something about that a while ago… but (thankfully) forget the details.
March 2, 2011 at 7:53 am
Oh, and before the “Hey, doesn’t FNC do it too?” comment… yes, sometimes they do.
However, there have been some other high-profile examples where they didn’t. Michelle Malkin comes to mind. Despite her harsh words for Geraldo (in response), and then harsh words for O’Reilly, she still appears with Hannity, and Megyn Kelly, and others.
And that’s my pre-response.
March 2, 2011 at 9:04 am
Sounds like self preservation to me. Seriously, who wants to debate Lanny Davis. You can’t win.
March 2, 2011 at 9:16 am
I haven’t figured out all the ins and outs of this situation, but I have to say I won’t miss him. Lanny Davis is a smarmy, condescending tool.
March 2, 2011 at 10:11 am
It’s dopey, but it’s Lanny. Who cares? I’m sure they could have come up with any number of other reasons not to book him, including ‘Who gives a crap?’
March 2, 2011 at 10:16 am
Joe…speaking strictly from a journalistic standpoint…shouldn’t Rachel and/or Ed allow for Lanny Davis to respond to the allegations?
I remember listening to Lanny Davis on BOR radio program & I’ve always found him to be an upfront/professional individual. Didn’t always agree with his position(s) however he presented his views professionally.
What is the harm in allowing Lanny Davis to present his position? Is RM “guilty” of selective journalism?
March 2, 2011 at 11:39 am
RM is guilty of “a devotion to facts that borders on the obsessive” … unless Lanny Davis is involved.
March 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I think RM and Ed have more interesting things to do than have Lanny on to discuss a pissing match no one but they care about. Listening to him spout legaleze about himself is “must miss” television.
March 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm
It shouldn’t matter whether you guys like Lanny Davis or whether or not he’s a boring guest; if something was said about him and he wants to rebut it, he should be allowed to do so, on the very venue the initial accusation was made!
As much as people here hate Fox, they ALWAYS invite a person on when they go after him/her for any reason. Sometimes the person accepts the invitation; other times, they’ll just announce that the invitation went out and the person declined to appear.
We all criticized Olberman for his one-sidedness, now you’re seemingly giving Maddow and Big Ed a pass for the same thing? What gives? And why shouldn’t ANYONE be allowed to face their accusors?
March 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm
^ Because it’s an opinion show, and if you allowed everyone who had ever been accused of something on one to rebut on air, that’s all we would ever see. I may be in the lib minority here, but I’ve never demanded that Bill or Sean or Glenn bring on people to “face their accusers”. There’s plenty of room on the internet for everyone to rebut their brains out.
March 2, 2011 at 6:49 pm
^
WRONG!
What if I came on here and told everyone that Joe is a Rush Limbaugh fan, who drives an Escalade and wears fur? Then I went on another venue and “refudiated” every one of these accusations. That would be unfair to you, because the audience that saw the rebuttal would be different than those who initially saw the accusations.
Even an orgn. as low as MSNBC should have the decency to let the accused face his accuser in front of the same audience.
March 2, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I suppose Rush should be implored to invite all the folks he trashes on, too? C’mon on, that’s not how this game is played. Lanny is a lobbying tool laughing all the way to the bank; he’ll be fine.
PS. Don’t touch my Escalade. Buy American. Where’s my coat?
March 2, 2011 at 8:55 pm
MSNBC being liberal doesn’t qualify them as being “low”.
March 2, 2011 at 9:01 pm
MSNBC being liberal doesn’t qualify them as being “low”.
Thank you. I can’t fight this crap alone.
March 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm
MSNBC being liberal doesn’t qualify them as being “low”.
Missy can defend herself, I’m sure, but where did she state that?
Here’s her claim:
“Even an orgn. as low as MSNBC should have the decency to let the accused face his accuser in front of the same audience.”
You guys read “liberal” into it.
March 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm
^ Where’s Freud when you need him?
March 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm
^Who says that liberals don’t have a guilty conscience?