A Contributor is a Contributor…Except When They’re Not…

Ok this is just plain wierd. The Cutline’s Dylan Stableford writes that MSNBC contributor Meghan McCain interviewed Michele Bachmann for the network…

Meghan McCain, MSNBC’s newly hired contributor, conducted her first interview for the cable news network on Wednesday with Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

McCain–who in January called Bachmann “a poor man’s Sarah Palin” on MSNBC–said that the interview will air “soon” on “Now With Alex Wagner,” the network’s lunch hour show.

What on earth is MSNBC doing giving a presidential candidate interview to one of its contributors? None of NBC’s political journalists or show hosts were available that day? Worse, this interview is going to air in the middle of dayside…which is supposed to be the news portion of the day. Fine if Bachmann was interviewed by a permanent member of NBC News’ talent staff. But this is a contributor we’re talking about. I’ve never seen Pat Buchanan or any of MSNBC’s other regular contributors get this special favor. It’s so wierd that I don’t know who benefits more from it: Bachmann or McCain?

Advertisements

41 Responses to “A Contributor is a Contributor…Except When They’re Not…”

  1. It was a truly strange segment..presented as “an interview with Meghan McCain about her interview with Michele Bachmann”. They mostly talked to Meghan about it, with a few short clips of it. Then they directed to a website for the whole interview. It struck me as a project Meghan brought to the network to promote, like it wasn’t an “MSNBC interview”. Much oddness.

  2. It’s very weird but then again it is MSNBC, they are marching by the beat of their own drum.

  3. Well, whatever, I’m hardly going to get worked up about this. Third rate MSNBC employee interviews third rate candidate. At least it has the attraction of novelty.

  4. It’s only weird if one considers MSNBC to be primarily a “news” channel. Think of it, instead. as primarily political affairs/discussion programming then what’s the problem?

  5. Well, it’s not like Bachmann would want to be interviewed by any of MSNBC’s main talent, and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

  6. What alternate universe are you living in today? She’s a Presidential candidate. She’s not being interviewed by Matthews, Maddow or LOD because she’s avoiding them.

  7. Kid has a point. It might’ve been Bachmann’s choice.

  8. That’s what I would think, especially considering Bachmann’s love of softball interviews. I don’t know if McCain would softball her, as well, but I’m sure she did a good job. I believe she’s a journalism major.

  9. The clips they showed were softball, followed by Meghan gushing to Alex how swell Michele was. Honestly, it looked like Alex’s show stopped for an extended product placement break. It was pretty weird.

  10. Her degree is in art history.

  11. That’s true, but Meghan has mentioned that she has a passion for journalism and writing about politics. If not passion, it’s obvious she has a good interest in it.

    I’m assuming her avenue into art history is due to what I think as a fairly attractive style of how she dresses and wears her makeup. She’s certainly my cup of tea… but hey, that’s me. 🙂

  12. Being interested in journalism does not = ‘journalism major’. Inventing nonexistent qualifications for her isn’t going to make up for her saying stuff like Bachmann is, you know, ‘more smarter’ than Palin. Yikes.

  13. “Moere smarter” was the result of a garbled sentence..don’t be a jerk.

  14. She’s not being interviewed by Matthews, Maddow or LOD because she’s avoiding them.

    Did then-candidate Obama submit to interviews with the likes of Hannity and Beck, or just those in the media who were wetting their pants over him?

  15. Nice work making a new point of an answer I gave. Josh said he was sure MSNBC people wouldn’t want to interview Bachmann. What’s your point?

  16. Looks like no Free For All today, so I’ll put this here. This was a brilliant segment last night, especially the part about FNC’s business model: “You can trust us and only us. The rest of the mainstream media are bad people who lie to you. Don’t watch them.”

    You hear this echoed constantly among conservatives on blogs. It’s a perfect, impenetrable circle. Anyone with an opinion or fact that doesn’t fit their model is rejected as untrustworthy. Just like a cult. Swell.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddow-takes-on-fox-news-coverage-of-gingrich-vs-romney-in-the-murdoch-primary/

  17. Yeah, an analysis of Fox News by someone who boasts of never watching the channel. And has a record of lying about the subject too. Yep, that’s what people call ‘brilliant’. Maybe I can produce a ‘brilliant’ commentary on the use of wheat germ to affect lipid profiles of Japanese beetles–because I know at least as much about that as Maddow knows about Fox News.

    It was probably just an unfortunate coincidence that on the same day Maddow advanced her theory that Fox is protecting Gingrich from criticism, Michelle Malkin unleased this blast:

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/12/01/michelle-malkin-to-gop-cupcake-candidates-if-you-cant-handle-bret-baier-you-arent-ready-for-liberal-media-velociraptors/

    It’s hard to decide if Maddow is simply an oaf for analyzing something she brags ignorance about, or a liar for her repeated falsehoods. I vote for: both!

  18. She mentioned that some contributors have criticized Newt, bright eyes.

  19. Maddow’s rationale: Here’s my stunning analysis, based on utter ignorance of what Fox News airs, and by the way, yeah, the facts don’t always bear out this theory of mine, but so what? I’m not reluctant to smear Fox, even if I have to lie to do it.

    Of all the things Maddow’s analysis might be cited about, Fox News is at the very bottom of her qualifications barrel.

  20. You’re gonna tell me that Fox isn’t pushing Newt over Mitt? That’s delusional..Newt wins the Murdoch Primary.

  21. Oh wow, someone who actually thinks Maddow’s ‘analysis’ is based on something more than what the producers fed into her prompter.

    So far I’ve read that Fox is pushing Newt because he worked there, Romney because they want the most electable candidate, Cain because of Greta’s husband… But of course, Maddow’s theory is the only one that isn’t ‘delusional’, because… because… because she’s the most ignorant on the subject of all! And in the world of Fox hater conspiracies, the more ignorant the proponent, the more people who will swallow it like credulous lemmings.

    Next I’ll be hearing about Maddow’s ‘brilliant’ analysis of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. Of course it won’t be released for months yet, but hey, it’s something else Maddow hasn’t seen, so that makes her qualified!

  22. Hold the phone! Wasn’t it just yesterday that Joe was telling us that Newt’s wisecracks had pissed off Roger Ailes? Now today, after Joe’s exposure to Maddow’s ignorance, suddenly Ailes isn’t pissed off at all. No he’s using the entire power of Fox News to get Newt nominated! (Why? Because he always does that for people who piss him off in public? This gets soooo confusing.)

    This is the problem with these crackpot Fox hater conspiracies. It’s so damn inconveeeenient when they bump into each other.

  23. And in the world of Fox hater conspiracies

    You calling someone else a conspiracy theorist is hilarious. Is there a bell that goes off in your house every time a critique of your beloved Fox News arrives somewhere on the planet?

  24. No, only when false critiques based on lies get arrive. It’s like the Bat Signal appearing in the skies of Gotham City.

  25. No, I don’t think Ailes would have been thrilled with The Chosen One bashing his network. I also don’t think it makes any difference: They hate Mitt, so Newt it is. Try to pay attention.

  26. Pay attention to ignorant drivel from Maddow, regurgitated by you? Please, waterboard me!

  27. Snappy comeback, Chip. I’d continue this sparkling conversation, but I’m old and tired and need a nap. Off to Megyn’s Power Panel with you.

  28. In the future I’m going to be referring to Joe as Tommy Christopher and J$ as Jeff Poor… (Twitter joke)

  29. Let’s see..Tommy is very fair and usually right, and Jeff calls himself a “professional jerk”. Works for me. 😉

  30. They also have a tendency to fight each other over stupid shit and suck the air out of a room while doing it…

  31. Spud, I think I love you..

  32. ..at least until my day comes.. 😉

  33. I don’t consider Rachel’s take on how FNC markets itself and favors certain candidates “stupid sh/t”. Both have a huge effect on how conservatives view themselves and the world. Also, it actually concerns the topic of this blog, but thanks for the condescension.

  34. Look you two when you go at it are just like the political pundits who talk past each other on cable. There’s nothing to be gained from the exercise and I think it’s a stupid waste of both of yours time. You’re both smart guys and have valid points to make (as well as invalid points but that goes with the territory I guess) but it’s positively Pavlovian the way you and others do this little dance every now and again.

    Or, to put it in these terms: I see Breitbart much the same way. There are times when I see him on TV and he’s making excellent points and is involved with a free flow of discussion. But all it takes is one talking point thrown at him to cause a Jekyll and Hyde like change. I can actually see a physical transformation take place in his face as he turns into what I call “The Breitbot” with his robot like responses to various statements as though he’s programmed himself to respond so rigidly with only that response. Christopher and Poor are much the same way. And so are you and Dollar when you tangle.

  35. Well, being grouped with “Fox haters” every time I dare to criticize Dollar’s precious gets a little irritating.

  36. Well, being grouped with “Fox haters” every time I dare to criticize Dollar’s precious gets a little irritating.

    Amen, JR. I’ve had that label for more than a year now (on behalf of J$), if not longer. I like to wear it as a badge of honor, because it’s just another way of saying that I say the things about Fox that $ is too afraid to admit.

    My relationship with Blue (his trusty sidekick) goes back for years ever since I started posting on Mediabistro, as well. Always arguing about cable news and taking potshots at one another… and all because we don’t like the same cable news channels.

  37. Mediabistro…geez, is that still around? I think I posted there a few times.

    What irritates me about the “Fox faithful” is the absolute loyalty, while calling everything else crap. It’s weird.

  38. Yeah, I still go there all the time. I rarely, if ever, post on the message boards, though. I just check the ratings and latest cable news.

    Fox viewers just live in a fantasy world that they are the victim and anybody who calls them out on anything is considered a hater and a liberal. O’Reilly has been pushing that narrative for more than a decade now, and it resonates in their faithful viewers who conspire about the “liberal media”.

    It’s like banging your head against a wall.

  39. Here’s what mystifies me: Rachel Maddow says something, but Rachel is a lying liberal piece of trash liar, so anything she says is immediately disregarded simply because she says it. I mean, geez, I disagree in general with O’Reilly ideologically, but it’s not like I’ve never heard an interesting point from him.

    Another good liberal example is Martin Bashir. Even I think demanding that Herman Cain leave his church is ridiculous, but Martin’s a really smart guy who has interesting things to say sometimes, and does a good interview. But noooo..he’s on nasty old liberal MSNBC so he’s the damn devil. That bunker groupthink mentality is unhealthy. Great for FNC’s ratings, though..

  40. Maybe that’s because Rachel is regularly known to report things that end up being not true. She has an unfortunate tendency to parrot things that just happen to line-up with what she already wants to believe. Not unlike…wait for it..Rush and Hannity! You can be “mystified” all day long, but that would be the actual reason..

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: