MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Apologizes After Saying Guest Knows His ‘Sh**’ (VIDEO)




Matthews, who hosted Sununu for a discussion of the 2016 field ahead of the MSNBC’s Democratic presidential debate, sent his guest off by saying: “Please come back. You’re kind of cranky, but you know your shit.”

“I shouldn’t have said that word,” Matthews followed up almost immediately. “That was a Trump word.”

After returning from a commercial break, the MSNBC host again apologized for his language, and blamed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for introducing it to the conversation.

“I have to apologize again for that word,” Matthews said. “I–I don’t know how I get it into my head into tonight’s broadcast. It’s a four-letter word, not a good word to be using on television. It’s funny, if there is irony in this business. We blurted out the candidate, Donald Trump used the exact same word.”


Watch below.

Chris Matthews applauds Donald Trump for destroying the falsehood that George W. Bush kept us safe: “Democrats never had the stones”

Chris Matthews applauds Donald Trump for destroying the falsehood that George W. Bush kept us safe:

(Credit: MSNBC)


Matthews also thanks Jeb! for his “stupidity” and “finally getting this one out in the open”

Chris Matthews opened Monday night’s edition of “Hardball” remarking on what he called the most striking development of the 2016 campaign thus far: “It took a political newcomer, Donald Trump, to say something we already knew but nobody had said before, that President George W. Bush did not keep us safe in the eight years he was president of the United States.”

Matthews, noting the ongoing “war of words” between establishment favorite Jeb Bush and the dominating political neophyte over the national security legacy of George W. Bush, applauded Trump for bringing his brashness to this latest fight, something Matthews charged, “the Democrats never had the stones” to do.

“I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump on many occasions,” Matthews said before arguing that Trump had “awakened us all” to the fact that Jeb is dishonest when he praises his big brother for “keeping us safe.”

“He didn’t keep us safe or the people on those planes, those four planes, safe that day,” Matthews charged. “He didn’t keep those safe, those men and women forced to choose between jumping from 100-story roof and being killed by the smoke and the fire. And he didn’t keep safe the hundreds of firefighters killed that day doing their courageous duty.”

Matthews then took umbrage with Republicans’ gall to hold Hillary Clinton personally responsible for the deaths of four Americans in “in a remote building in war-torn North Africa, miles, 400 miles from the capital of that country,” while ignoring “a concerted, highly coordinated attack using our commercial airliners and our training,” in order to give George W. Bush a pass.

“Again, I want to thank Trump, and Jeb, of course, for finally getting this one out in the open, by throwing out the red meat. By saying, ‘he kept us safe,” Jeb let us know what we knew already, that actually, W. didn’t keep us safe, did he?”

Watch Matthews, via Mediaite:

H/t: DB

Campaign 3.0? Biden To Announce Presidential Decision In 48 Hours




If he decides to enter the race, this will be his third attempt.

“Everyone’s a bit weary about the speculation,” Harwood said.

H/t: DB

Carly Fiorina Gets OWNED Trying To Take Credit For Something She Didn’t Do (VIDEO)


Carly Fiorina frequently tries to tout her record at Hewlett-Packard as “successful” on the campaign trai,l even though she was fired from her job as CEO for failing to live up to expectations.

She tried to do the same thing in a segment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and was called out for it by Steve Rattner, a former Treasury official. Only this time, instead of sticking to her usual script, she attempted to take credit for a job her successor was tasked with completing after she had already been let go by the company.


Here’s a bit of transcript from that ill-fated (for Fiornia at least) exchange:

Steve Rattner: At Hewlett Packard, you were fired after a disastrous merger with Compaq, when the stock price collapsed.

Carly: Oh, I was fired. Absolutely I was fired. But, it was actually a very successful merger with Compaq and it set the company up for great success.

Steve Rattner: Well, it was a successful merger because your successor was able to execute what you weren’t able to execute, which is why the board fired you, I believe.

Mrs. Fiorina likes to stick to certain talking points from her time at HP, referring to revenue growth, market share gains, and an increase in patents as proof of her accomplishments as CEO. She does this while essentially ignoring everything else to paint a rosy picture for voters.

Even on these bullet points, she is misleading.

Carly claims that she took a company and doubled it in size to almost $90 billion.  On this, she’s correct. But, it only nearly doubled in size because she merged with another company (Compaq). It’s easy to increase revenues that way. While there was some temporary success (after her departure) it didn’t take long for HP to spin off its PC and printer business, which it did in 2014. This ultimately proved that her big gamble on Compaq and the resulting layoffs shortly afterward, simply weren’t worth it.

On patents, she likes to insinuate that she increased innovation by tripling the number of patents to 11 a day. On this, she isn’t even entirely honest. While HP’s patents did increase from 10,000 in 1999 to over 30,000 in Oct. 2005, it wasn’t entirely on the account of “increased innovation.” As with revenue, one reason HP’s portfolio of patents went up was because it got to take credit for the innovation Compaq was doing.

Compare this to how HP performed when she left. By that time, HP was filing nearly twice as many patents as they did when she was in charge.

Perhaps the best way to point to her failure as CEO was how the markets responded when she was fired. Hilariously, on the public announcement of her dismissal Hewlett Packard’s stock went up 6% points, adding nearly $3 billion in value to the company.

Carly can try and spin it any way she likes, but that last fact is simply hard to ignore.

Here’s How MSNBC Is Becoming Another Right-Wing Noise Machine

MSNBC ad for “Morning Joe”


MSNBC has long been a refuge for people on the left seeking refuge from the right-wing noise machine that is Fox News. However, MSNBC’s latest lineup indicates that they are far more interested attracting conservative viewers than producing quality news and editorial programming.

Mediaite reported that Morning Joe is going to get another hour every weekday. Yeah, seriously, that gives the show an entire four-hour slot to try to compete to the bottom with Fox and Friends. In March, Alex Pareene laid out a case in Gawker that MSNBC’s shift to the right is mainly about constructing a political agenda rather than trying to improve their ratings. In the article, he questions why Morning Joe is not getting the chopping block when it is not particularly helping the network’s ratings. I suspect it has to do with MSNBC parent company Comcast’s new Republican allies in their mission to create a closed internet. You don’t get to be a monolithic corporation without knowing how to play a long game.

Andrea Mitchell gets to keep her show. So look forward to more TMZ-esque interviews with politicians, as was witnessed during her recent interview with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. It has not yet been confirmed, though All In With Chris Hayes is still stuck in the perpetual rumor mill of being axed. Rachel Maddow is of course still safe. Though with the emergence of the new “All the Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough you can manage network,” I feel she is being more and more relegated to the role of the token liberal.

MSNBC’s left-leaning programming has been being whittled down slowly but surely. An MSNBC insider laid it out for the The Daily Beast, last February. They reported:

“Everybody in the food chain from top to bottom understands that the Olbermann era is over,” said an MSNBC source, referring to the glory days during George W. Bush’s administration when incendiary liberal Keith Olbermann regularly attracted a million viewers—many of them seeking refuge from White House and Republican talking points. Going left was a brilliant strategy while it lasted and made hundreds of millions of dollars for Comcast, but now it doesn’t work anymore…The goal is to move away from left-wing TV.”

Source: The Daily Beast

So welcome to the new landscape media, two right-wing media networks and CNN.


Mika joe


Mediaite’s Joe Concha reported Thursday that MSNBC is getting rid of Jose Diaz-Balart so they can give the morning program an extra hour.

In an exclusive scoop on Thursday, media critic and conservative commentator Joe Concha stated that MSNBC would be giving its morning opinion show, Morning Joe, an additional hour. The program, which already runs three hours each weekday, will now broadcast from 6 AM to 10 AM ET, In order to make room for Morning Joe, MSNBC has decided to kick Jose Diaz-Balart to the curb. Currently, the respected Cuban-American reporter hosts the 9 AM to 11 AM slot on the network.

Over the past few months, MSNBC has been revamping its schedule in order to refocus its network branding away from liberal-based political opinion to more hard news reporting. Since the beginning of this year, we’ve seen shows hosted by Ronan Farrow, Joy Reid, Alex Wagner, Ed Schultz and the young crew of The Cycle get canceled. Last week, Al Sharpton saw his show, PoliticsNation, shuffled off to Sunday morning.  Meanwhile, it has been understood that the only programs that aren’t in danger of being moved or axed are Morning Joe, The Rachel Maddow Show and Hardball with Chris Matthews. 

While MSNBC has said it wants to focus more on hard news, giving a political opinion show like Morning Joe four hours seems to fly in the face of that logic. Same goes with giving Meet the Press host Chuck Todd a one-hour late-afternoon broadcast that will also center mostly on Washington politics. While it appears that there will be slightly more hours devoted to actual news broadcasting than in the past, it seems that more of the focus isn’t on being a news channel, but being a more centrist, perhaps even Republican-friendly, network.

But will this all backfire? Giving a substance-free gabfest like Morning Joe four full hours to allow Joe Scarborough to bloviate endlessly seems like a bad idea on the surface. Especially when you consider that the hosts have decided to jump all the way on the Donald Trump bandwagon, allowing the real estate mogul and whining six-year-old to pop on the program anytime he wants to get free airtime for his campaign and personal brand. (Joe has especially embraced Trump’s anti-Latino rhetoric.) This is made even worse that, in order to get the extra hour to blather on, the network got rid of its most well-known Hispanic personality.

The bad optics of giving a Trump-friendly program more airtime at the behest of a Latino anchor was noted by many after Concha’s article went up.

Continue reading here…

Keith Olbermann Rumored To Be Returning To MSNBC

Gosh, I miss this guy!


Well it has been a long time needed, but there are rumors now that due to failing ratings at MSNBC, and since ESPN couldn’t handle the truth, Keith Olbermann might be returning to the Prime Time Lineup at MSNBC. Olbermann was removed from his position a few years ago due to irreconcilable differences between him and upper management (Phil Griffin, who is MSNBC president and NOT a progressive). MSNBC’s ratings have been failing badly due to terrible management by Griffin, in trying to carbon copy Rachel Maddow into enough numbers to fill every one hour time slot on the network after their GOP Apologist morning show “Morning Joe”.

Rumored to be on the block are Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Chris Hayes. Any one of these could be removed and have this open up a 1 hour slot for the return of Keith to prime time political commentary. Keith did a fine job on ESPN, and actually made me watch that network for the first time in my life with any form of regularity, however his speaking the truth on injustice, criminal behavior, and general shenanigans in Big $ports, has put him on the outs with ESPN management who gave him his walking papers earlier this summer.

As usual, the same problem followed Olbermann to ESPN that he had at MSNBC. He was dogged by Corporate Apologists/GOP Apologists in the network management that hated the idea of his speaking the truth about things like Roger Goodell’s untenable leadership in the wake of so many abuse scandals by players and the subsequent coverups that ensued by the organization, and allegations of cheating going unchallenged in the Patriots, due to personal relationships between Goodell and the Patriots franchise. Olbermann was giving criticism well deserved of the NFL, along with other sports personalities and organizations where merited and this was too much for ESPN. They needed a bland, whitewashed, profit-friendly business model.

Now we will wait and see what happens with Keith and MSNBC. Will they reunite again for a future journey? Olbermann was previously being harassed by network management for donating his own money to political campaigns, all of which was totally within legal boundaries but somehow was seen as “Bad” by management (yes a progressive icon like Olbermann donating to progressive campaigns with his own money is wrong according to MSNBC management). Olbermann had previously said that he was not very much into the idea of returning to MSNBC due to this, among other issues with upper management, however I suppose when push comes to shove, the corporate shill Phil Griffin might be made to give some allowances and probably a lot more money to try to revive the ratings that he has pushed into the toilet systematically for years now. With the demise of CurrentTV, a progressive populist message is sorely in demand in America, and MSNBC has been unable to fulfill this for a very long time. Olbermann would definitely draw back the viewers and if he is allowed to just be himself this time, he will definitely be able to keep them.

Olbermann regularly destroyed BillO the Clown. This is one of the best things ever to happen on television.

If you happen to still watch MSNBC (I do at times) you probably get wistful of the good old days of Martin Bashir, Keith Olbermann, Dylan Ratigan, and Cenk Uygur. These people along with Rachel Maddow brought a harder hitting progressive message, sometimes frustrated, sometimes angry, but always straight shooting and not afraid to call out hypocrisy. Since then, all of these people have been removed from MSNBC, simply because they had the temerity to call out the establishment and not give credence to the “we need to present both sides” viewpoint that has completely polluted the network since then. MSNBC is practically Fox News, and Fox News is now some completely unhinged creature that has an assault rifle for genitals and develops spontaneous stigmata any time someone says the words “equality” or “minimum wage” in any context other than to get rid of both. I, for one, hope this rumor is completely true. Come back Keith, we miss you and need you back.

Professional Armchair Journalist

MSNBC Rumor Alert: Olbermann Coming Back? Several Shows Getting Slashed?

olbermann_msnbc | screenshot

The only way I can see this happening is if Chris Hayes  gives up the 8pm slot which happened to be KO’s original time slot or…if MSNBC gets rid of Lawrence O’Donnell in the 10 pm slot.  I doubt that they’ll move Rachel Maddow.

I’m in Olbermann’s camp whichever way it goes.  MSNBC has not had the ratings it got when Olberman was on at 8pm.


Late last year, as MSNBC bled primetime viewers, network chief Phil Griffin openly sought to “broaden” the channel’s coverage, away from progressive commentary-heavy talk shows and back to human interest stories and hard news. Since then, multiple shows have been cancelled and jobs have been called into question.

Mediaite has learned that an MSNBC Town Hall meeting is scheduled for July 23 with returning NBC News president Andy Lack, and that many staffers are, quote, “freaking out.” Why? Well, because the struggling cable net has to figure out how to overhaul its programming following two of its worst quarterly performances in recent memory.

According to multiple sources within the network, the biggest rumor to emerge is that MSNBC has engaged in talks with soon-to-be-departed ESPN2 host Keith Olbermann about returning to the cable network’s primetime lineup. Olbermann previously hosted Countdown from 2003 until 2011, and was an immensely controversial figure for the network, both internally and externally (2003 was a return to the network for Olbermann after a previously contentious run in the ’90s as well). For myriad reasons, it would be a stunning turn of events if Olbermann came back, but one could certainly argue that right now they need each other more than ever.

But even a theoretical Olbermann return could suggest MSNBC’s desire to get back into the fiery primetime wars, and also highlights the reality that several other shows are likely on the chopping block.

Multiple sources within the network tell us that several shows are at risk: All In with Chris Hayes, which currently runs at 8 p.m., opposite Fox’s ratings titan in The O’Reilly Factor; PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, which features the controversial host’s commentary in the 6 p.m. hour; and The Ed Show, which was cancelled once before, moved to the weekend, and then revived at 5 p.m. on weekdays.

According to the sources, top officials are eyeing the cancellation of Hayes’ nightly program after 27 months of lackluster ratings. The show was meant to replicate the success of similarly wonky, younger-demo-appealing Rachel Maddow, but continually failed to achieve ratings, especially while competing with Bill O’Reilly. Hayes would likely be offered a roving reporter role, similar to the one Ronan Farrow received following the cancellation of his show earlier this year.

Sharpton’s show could be axed or more likely moved to the weekends — if he would accept that demotion — our sources say. Long considered untouchable because of the immense power and influence he wields, Sharpton has become something of a liability for the network seeking to shift away from its deeply left-wing image. Not to mention, his role in facilitating the NBC merger with Comcast has come under legal fire from black-owned media groups and questions that have been raised about his advocacy and tax bills.

Ed Schultz‘s show seems destined for change — whether it be cancellation or another weekend move— as it occasionally hits new lows in viewership and routinely finishes fourth in the key cable news demo of 25-to-54-year-olds. Although, in his defense, the lead-in he receives from Alex Wagner at 4 p.m. is usually anemic.

Which brings us to another key problem for MSNBC bigwigs: how to revive its daytime programming that sometimes loses to the ratings challenged Al Jazeera America in demo ratings and, some suggest, sets the poor performance tone for the primetime shows.

Under the leadership of current SVP Yvette Miley — a veteran of local and national news coverage — it would seem natural for MSNBC’s daytime programming to shift towards hard and breaking news reporting. But the costs of doing so are prohibitive: Flourishing newsrooms like Fox and CNN require an expensive corral of camera crews, reporters, satellite and assignment desks, etc. — something MSNBC has comparatively lacked in recent years, seemingly by design. And Miley has been at the helm for six years with little success in that arena.

The bottom line, our sources tell us, is that MSNBC is “in flux,” and people are “frustrated.” FormerNightly News anchor and confessed embellisher Brian Williams is expected to debut on MSNBC soon, but no one knows when and in what exact capacity. Don’t be shocked, one source suggests, if Williams eventually ends up with a primetime news show on the cable channel.

Who would’ve thought: MSNBC attempts to solve ratings woes by adding Brian Williams and Keith Olbermann, the men who used to host back-to-back programs on the network, circa 1997? Perhaps this recent tweet from Olbermann was more prescient than first thought.

Continue reading


MSNBC Screen Capture


Morning Joe’s namesake is a very busy and important man who can’t be bothered to get things right the first time

Last week, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough went on TV and said something false. Reacting to the inflammatory (and often dubious) allegations in Peter Schweizer’s new book, Clinton Cash, Scarborough posited that the government of Algeria made donations to the Clinton Foundation as a way to buy its way off the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. “The Clinton Foundation takes the check, and then just, out of nowhere the State Department then decides, well, they are going to take Algeria off the list,” Scarborough said. As Politifact and (my former employer) Media Matters pointed out, such an arrangement would have been impossible, given that Algeria has never been on the State Department’s list of terrorism sponsors.

So Scarborough was wrong. And today on Morning Joe, he offered a sneering, sarcastic “apology” to Politifact for having the temerity to point out how wrong he was.

I’m struggling to recall an instance in which a pundit has so self-indulgently wallowed in his own arrogance and sense of entitlement. Everyone gets something wrong every now and then, and the proper thing to do when those things happen is to correct the record, apologize, and move on. For Scarborough, though, the act of correction is an assault on the misbegotten pride he feels in hosting a low-rated and unwatchable morning news program.

First things first: Joe Scarborough seems to believe that because he puts on an “ad-libbed” show that lasts many hours, he enjoys some leeway when it comes to just making shit up. “Last week, in the course of this three-hour, ad-libbed show, I suggested Algeria may have been giving unreported donations to the Clinton Foundation in an effort to change their status on the State Department’s terror list.” Here’s a thought: maybe put a little more planning into what you say on cable news every day. “I do a long show that I put little to no forethought into” is not a justification for getting things wrong: it’s an admission that your show’s format is bad and should be changed to minimize these sorts of errors.

Scarborough also faulted Politifact for not noting that before he launched into this made-up nonsense about Algeria, he offered a disclaimer that he didn’t know what he was talking about. “Now, never mind that I prefaced my statement by saying that all the specifics may not be perfectly lined up. These are the realities, after all, of all of us doing a three-hour rolling conversation without teleprompters or scripts, the very things that every other news show in America is chained to but we aren’t. But still I prefaced my remark, but that prefaced remark mattered little to the Clinton arm of Politifact.” Yes, how dare Politifact not do Joe Scarborough the courtesy of highlighting his admission that he was talking out his ass.

Having begged off any sort of responsibility for the things he says on his own program, Scarborough then lashed out at Politifact, claiming that they were just picking nits (which, of course, absolves Scarborough from any blame).


SCARBOROUGH: So Politifact, let me get this straight. The Clinton Foundation was taking the money, hold on, not to get off the terror list. They were throwing them money at the same time they wanted to the State Department to get them off a list for their gross human rights abuses towards women. I hope I’ve cleared that up. Because I’ve got more. Have I cleared that part up? Because I don’t want to get it wrong! And any time Politifact calls me out on a footnote, I promise I’m going to come out here and let you know that instead of talking about the Clinton Foundation getting money to possibly get Algeria off the terror list, it would possibly be to whitewash gross human rights violations against women. I’m glad I got that off my chest.

Politifact actually noted all of that in their correction of Scarborough – they had a whole section of the fact-check headlined “Human rights violations hamper relations.” But this isn’t a dispute over a “footnote,” as Scarborough’s weaselly, sarcastic rebuttal put it. Inclusion on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror is not a small thing. Once the U.S. government identifies a country as a sponsor of terrorism, they’re immediately subject to a whole host of economic sanctions. If, as Scarborough had posited, the Clinton Foundation had been part of a quid pro quo scheme to let Algeria buy its way off that list and out of those sanctions, that would have been a massive scandal.

But whatever, Scarborough was just “ad-libbing,” so it’s no big deal. It’s not Joe Scarborough’s responsibility to be right the first time; it’s Politifact’s responsibility to cut him as much slack as he needs because “Morning Joe” isn’t about facts, it’s about “conversation.”

And that leads to the most important question: why does “Morning Joe” still exist? Scarborough is clearly very proud of the ad-libbed, thrown-together format that permits him and his pundit pals to make stuff up in a consequence-free environment, but nobody actually watches the show. Its ratings are abysmal, and yet it soldiers on as a monument to Joe Scarborough’s insufferable arrogance.


HuffPost Reporter Confronts McCain: Does ‘Victory’ in Iraq Mean Endless War?


Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein had a rather testy exchange Friday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“I just want to nail down what it means to have it won,” Stein told the senator at the start of his question. “When we were debating the war [in Iraq], I thought the idea was that we would put up an Iraqi government that would be self-sufficient and an Iraqi military that could protect. We spent $25 billion propping up the military, and it folds, even despite having much greater numbers than ISIS.

“So I’m curious: What is the definition of victory? What is the definition of winning? Does it mean having a residual force basically without end date? I’m just a little bit confused. I want to know what victory is to you.”

The senator wasted no time snapping back, hammering Stein for his “confusion”:

I think you are confused because you didn’t know what happened with the surge where we basically had the country pacified. We had a stable government in Baghdad, and we had the conflict basically — for all intents and purposes — won. We still got troops in Bosnia, a residual force would have stabilized the country. Most military experts will tell you that. So I’m sorry about your confusion, but the facts on the ground were that al Qaeda had been defeated almost completely and with the residual American force and at that time, a strong Iraq. Now, [Iraqi PM Nouri] al-Maliki is very weak. Maliki got worse after we left. And again, I knew this was going to happen, because we didn’t leave that force behind. And so I’m sorry about your confusion, but anybody who was there will tell you we had the conflict won.

“I guess I shouldn’t myself confused, because it would be used against me,” Stein remarked. He then pressed once more: “What is the end date for our forces in Iraq? Is it open-ended? And if that’s the case, because we need to have a residual force there to prop up the Iraq government indefinitely, is that how you see it?”

In return, McCain cited residual American troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Bosnia as having successfully stabilized regions American forces have previously occupied.

Watch the exchange below, via Mediaite: