Forget MSNBC. Who advertises on Tweety's show?

In addition to MSNBC, the good leverage point may be the advertisers. Who advertises on Tweety's show?

Sorry, please ignore the first comment. It was posted in haste and imprudently worded.

Maybe MSNBC could foot the bill to have Matthews' penis enlarged. The man has issues.

Chris Matthews aside, MSNBC is a real class act... (snark underlined). Did anyone else notice their online article about the death of Lance Cpl. Lauterbach? It's completely disgusting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22608032/

First, they state that "Mary Lauterbach has confirmed reports that her daughter is a compulsive liar." They also keep going back to comments about how she was bipolar. WTF? It seems to me that this is disrespectful, tawdry, and ultimately pointless. Obviously something happened to this girl. She was murdered right before testifying against the superior officer she accused of raping her. Anything is possible, but to me, it strains credulity to think that is a coincidence. Even if it turns out to be, what is the point of attacking this poor girl's credibility on the very day her body has been found?

Also, "Authorities said they didn’t consider Lauren a flight risk until Friday, because they had information the pair carried on a “friendly relationship� after she reported the assault to military authorities." Ok, I lay this at the door of the "authorities" more than MSNBC, but still... the insinuation here is clear. Oh, she was friendly (as a low-ranking enlisted woman, toward a superior officer, if you can imagine!), so we're going to completely discredit what she says, and take no precautions to ensure her safety. This makes me so angry.

@Marshall Lucky -- do they really need a bigger dick on MSNBC?

Erica, I thought they had one. Isn't that racist clown on MSNBC?

Chris Mathews talks pretty tough for a Pillsbury Dough Boy in Washington DC drag.

I wrote to both email addresses, my
text is below, feel free to copy/paste for your own complaint.

I'm writing to tell you that as a viewer I am deeply offended by the language and tone of Mr. Matthews coverage of Senator Clinton's presidential campaign. I find the language degrading and find Mr. Matthews to have a lack of respect for women. It is deeply troubling to hear, day after day, a major media outlet that I once respected allow such clearly offensive and sexist language on the air. As a professional journalist, I am appalled by the lack of integrity in the permission of Mr. Matthews' continued presence on the air.

I urge you to consider how the public would respond were Mr. Matthews' derogatory language to be directed at another group. Would it be allowed to pass for him to refer to Senator Obama or Governor Richardson using racial overtones or employing stereotypes? If so, I ask you if morals or ethics are employed in your news room. If not, then I ask why Mr. Matthews' commentary has been allowed.

Ohmigod, I fucking hate Chris Matthews. My boyfriend watches him and has been the source of many spats between the two of us. His annoying sexist rants are single-handily turning me into a Clinton supporter. I do love the Pillsbury Dough Boy comment, Caitlyn- I'll have to use that one.

Cici:

This is really just nitpicking, but the guy wasn't a superior officer. He was also enlisted. He did outrank her, but only by one level. The Marine Corps generally takes fraternization charges ("close" - usually meaning sexual - relationships between people of different ranks) very seriously, but without knowing how long the relationship had been going on, or when he was promoted to corporal, I don't know if that was an issue.
On the other hand, if it doesn't directly affect the chain of command, almost anything is overlooked, including rape and abuse. "Don't ask, don't tell" applies to more than just gays in the military. Officers generally have a "You don't tell us about your problems, and we don't have to start asking questions" mentality. There's a very good chance that if this hadn't turned into a murder case, nobody would have heard about it.

GE owns MSNBC. Along other media and entertainment properties directed to, or heavily viewed by, women.

If the head of the GE lightbulb division were to use this vernacular in reference to the head of iVillage -- publicly -- there would be grave concern at GE about creating a hostile workplace.

What if this appalling behavior influenced our purchase of a pricey GE washer, or caused us to stop watching Bravo (it's all on Netflix, right)?

Write to the CEO of GE:

Mr. Jeff Immelt
Chief Executive Officer
General Electric Company
Fairfield, CT 06828

Corporate executives have senior level staffers who handle this sort of correspondence, and they do pay attention to a volume of complaints on a particular topic -- especially if letters are well thought out and respectful in tone. (i.e. if they don't have a Hardball kind of tone.) And letters/postcards probably get a bit more weight than emails.

You can also email GE via their website.

http://www.ge.com/contact/index.html

GE's board includes a fair number of prominent women, and you could write to them at the corporate address (above):
* MIT President Dr. Susan Hockfield;
* Avon CEO Andrea Jung;
* Ogilvy & Mather CEO Rochelle Lazarus;
* Ann Fudge, former Chairman and CEO of Young & Rubicam Brands.

GE Media/Entertainment Brands

* BravoBrands
* CNBCBrands
* Focus Features & Rogue PicturesBrands
* Global NetworksBrands
* iVillageBrands
* MSNBCBrands
* Mun2Brands
* NBC EntertainmentBrands
* NBC NewsBrands
* NBC Sports & OlympicsBrands
* NBC Universal Television GroupBrands
* NBC Universal Television StationsBrands
* SCI FIBrands
* TelemundoBrands
* Universal Parks & ResortsBrands
* Universal PicturesBrands
* Universal Studios Home EntertainmentBrands
* USA NetworkBrands
* Weather Plus

Its about time the media should start getting on his ass.
If I was Erin Burnett I wouldve filed a sexual harassment claim. The idiot needs to go.

tuba terry...thanks, i was going to point that out...isn't she E4 and he E5? according to big navy that isn't frat as long as he isn't her direct CoC...it is such a sad story...no one, even ppl in the area, didn't believe her

RE Chris Matthews...consider it done...

and thanks, ann libby, for the info!

tuba terry...thanks, i was going to point that out...isn't she E4 and he E5? according to big navy that isn't frat as long as he isn't her direct CoC...it is such a sad story...no one, even ppl in the area, didn't believe her

RE Chris Matthews...consider it done...

and thanks, ann libby, for the info!

I've had it with these idiotic calls for corporate censorship! How can no one else see how ridiculous these demands to fire talk show hosts are? Because you find them offensive? This is why no news anchors, to say nothing of presidential candidates, will stand up on national TV and bitch-slap anti-gay bigots: because said bigots might find it "offensive" and respond with massive protest campaigns. And they're better letter writers!

Chris Matthews has a Constitutional right to say whatever he wants. All you're doing by demanding that MSNBC fire him is reinforcing the reality that the mass-media is a marketplace ruled entirely by money, and that if certain ideas (or certain ways of expressing ideas) cause people to tune out, then those ideas won't get any air time. Which hurts the feminists of the world far more than it does the Chris Matthews.

Don Imus had the same right. No law prevented him from spewing his diatribe about the Rutgers team: he just became a toxic commodity for his network, and they dumped him. But good speech drives out bad, and in a truly free media environment, his loathsome comments would never have enjoyed such a wide audience. Free speech is dying all around us, and these idiotic boycotts are just making it worse!

Personally, I don't agree with most of what Chris Matthews says, but I take a certain pleasure in his snarkiness. The only solution to it is an atmosphere of reasoned argument in which snarkiness and entertainment value alone cannot sustain an untenable position. Do you want to help foster that environment? Or do you just want to shout down people who you disagree with?

(And no, I’m not interested in being called out for the use of the phrase “bitch-slap.� Get over it)

Of course its everyones constitutional right to say whatever they want on tv, thats why it has to be regulated. You cant have anchors saying blatantly racist, or sexist remarks or else theyre not doing what an anchor is supposed to be doing. Money DOES rule tv, and so does quality journalism. So that means you cant use your spot on tv to spew your own personal sexism, or racist views, particulalry when its watched by a large audience. Time for MSNBC to evolve like society has since the 1960s, and represent its viewership.

Youre also overlooking the fact that he sexually harassed a quest speaker on tv. Thats inexcusable.

kapek,
Television is an industry which means it has to be legally regulated, like any business. Take a 'Regulations of Telecommunications' class if you want further elaboration.

'(And no, I’m not interested in being called out for the use of the phrase “bitch-slap.� Get over it)'

Why are you on a feminist site?

Uh, I'm on a feminist site, Gopher, BECAUSE I'M A FEMINIST! Am I not doctrinaire enough for you in my choice of language? Why don't you get me banned, then; Then you can have this forum all to yourself, and your own breathtakingly incoherent arguments:

"Of course its everyones constitutional right to say whatever they want on tv, thats why it has to be regulated."

Sorry, what? Regulated by who, exactly? The Ministry of Truth?

"You cant have anchors saying blatantly racist, or sexist remarks..."

Nor, I presume, can you have them saying anything blatantly "man-hating" or "militant" or "lesbian seperatist". Even if the anchor's supposed authority as an objective editor of the news were taken seriously by the news networks themselves, these stifling gag rules apply to ANY television personality, thus deadening possibilities for open discourse. And "blatant" is in the eye of the beholder.

"I do love the Pillsbury Dough Boy comment, Caitlyn- I'll have to use that one."

I'm shocked! That's blantantly anti-doughy person!
I happen to like the "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched" comments myself, though I wouldn't use them.

The trouble is with this conflation of industry and free speech. This effort to get Matthews fired is aimed at his industry; but the point of objection is his speech. As to his sexually harassing a guest speaker, I don't know anything about that. I don't actually watch this blowhard: the sum of my knowledge about him comes from the description provided by this website! And STILL I defend him! Because demanding his removal from the airwaves on the basis of his SPEECH is not only anti-American, it's ANTI-ENLIGHTENMENT. The solution is to either COMPETE with his speech somehow (competition IS the basis of Industry, you know)or simply DON'T WATCH IT! Even if you manage to bring him down, you won't really have affected the tastes of MSNBC's audience, and you'll only have succeeded in making yourselves look, dare I say it, HUMOURLESS.

Public discourse should not be dictated by small, narrowly focused special interest groups, whatever the cause. Feminists should make the case NOT that Chris Matthews should be fired, but that everything his says IDIOTIC!

FYI: It's Nurse Ratchet, a reference to the character in Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Erica B, no matter what gets done to Matthews' vienna sausage, Joe Scarborough and Schmucker Carlson will always be bigger pricks.

I fail to see how dropping a line to MSNBC stating my opinion is a free speech issue. Exercising my free speech has a chilling effect on... free speech? That makes no sense!

I think Matthews is an idiot and I don't plan on watching MSNBC until they hire more intelligent people. I've dropped them a line to let them know. Anyone who thinks that my actions constitute an attack on free speech doesn't understand what free speech is all about.

I have e-mailed MSNBC and Matthews and gave them my thoughts.

I haven't seen Hardball since former presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun was on in 2003.

I'm not going to defend Chris Matthews' comments but some of what's listed on the Media Matters article is out of context or a matter of opinion on issues that he does seem to be more informed on than the person calling for the boycott.

I was watching when he made the comment about Clinton being the only nationally viable female candidate (and if someone disagrees I'd love to hear some examples) which he said making a larger point about how invested women who aren't necessarily politically active (especially in the NH primary) feel in supporting her.

Anyways, the median age of a cable news watcher is like 108. They srsly advertise canned oxygen on those shows. I think Media Matters emailers will have a tough time proving they ever buy those products to make a threat to MSNBC.

kapek,
You ARE NOT a feminist. No feminist would ever write-

'Nor, I presume, can you have them saying anything blatantly "man-hating" or "militant" or "lesbian seperatist".'

Shouldnt you be on some 'I love Chris Matthews' kiss ass site....

and quit bothering REAL feminists

Theres a thousand BETTER anchors that can easily replace Chris, without the sexism. Hes old, outdated and in the tv industry that means a buh-bye! I'm a media major with a focus in advertising and television broadcasting, and everyone knows this.

'As to his sexually harassing a guest speaker, I don't know anything about that.'

Look on feministings search and put in Chris Matthews. You'll find a video with him interrupting Erin to compliment how beautiful she is.

'And STILL I defend him! Because demanding his removal from the airwaves on the basis of his SPEECH is not only anti-American, it's ANTI-ENLIGHTENMENT. The solution is to either COMPETE with his speech somehow (competition IS the basis of Industry, you know)or simply DON'T WATCH IT!'

Get off your cross, and quit hiding your bias torwards Chris by using 'free speech' as a cover.

Yes, kapek, because in our modern capitalist society, the most powerful choice anyone ought to have is the decision of whether to consume something or not.

I think it's our duty in this capitalist society to tell companies/organizations what we think of their decisions.

Feminists are consumers too.

And for the love of god, please educate yourself about the first amendment. It protects people from government interference with their speech - with a number of exceptions. It does not guarantee anyone a right to say whatever they want wherever they want. MSNBC can fire Matthews if they want (though they won't). That's not an interference with his first amendment rights because MSNBC is not the government.

Nobody has a right to a particular job or forum for speech.

MSNBC??

Besides the uber narcissist himself, herr ubermann, you mean there people out there who actually watch that network???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Thank You.

I ditto the prickage Scarborough and Carlson as well.

Hey gang...

this is the text of the letter I wrote to MSNBC... maybe it would help? feel free to use it if you like...

To Whom it May Concern:

After watching much of the coverage of the 2008 presidential race on MSNBC, I have to write to inform you of my disappointment in the hateful speech employed by Chris Matthews. Throughout the campaign he has been consistent in exhibiting misogynistic undertones in his coverage of Senator Clinton's campaign. Perhaps the Media Matters website ( mediamatters.org) put the problem most succinctly when they wrote recently, "Using overtly sexist language, [Chris Matthews] has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a 'she devil' and compared her to a 'strip-teaser.' He has called her 'witchy' and likened her voice to 'fingernails on a blackboard.' He has referred to men who support her as 'castratos in the eunuch chorus.' He has suggested Clinton is not 'a convincing mom' and said 'modern women' like Clinton are unacceptable to 'Midwest guys.' He has called her 'Madame Defarge' and 'Nurse Ratched.'"

I realize that to an extent, Matthews is considered at television personality, and the defense has surely been brought forth that as such a "personality," his sexist rhetoric is not to be taken seriously. I am just as certain that those such as myself who speak out regarding these attacks on Clinton's gender will be told to relax, that he doesn't mean the remarks to be negative or more simply dismissed, told that these remarks are not an issue. We've heard that story a thousand times before. The story I haven't heard is about the major news network that made a stand to protect the rights and dignity of a candidate who was being verbally abused. Matthews' offenses are not news, they do not draw ratings and they do considerable damage to the long overdue upward political mobility of women in our society. Please consider the impact on young girls and boys watching MSNBC who will learn from the news anchors and television hosts to whom you give authority that misogynistic behavior is acceptable and expected.

Thank you for your time

Kendall-
EXCELLENT letter! I stand in awe of your superior writing skills.

Thanks for posting it.

Once again, I have made the unfortunate mistake, of someone who doesn't post ANYTHING on the internet other than here, on this one site, of jumping in to express wider concerns on the basis of single issues. I'm well aware that Chris Matthews is undeserving of the defence I've provided for him; nonetheless, I felt compelled to make it.

But unfortunately, this kind of scapegoating and boycotting is now de rigeur on the Internet. "Silence Don Imus! Silence Ted Rall! Cancel that show! Silence Ann Coulter (who has herself tried to silence so many others)!" I guess its pointless to try and speak out against it.

If I do, the first thing I can expect is to be attacked for something as nit-picky as repeating the Media Matters typo verbatim. Yes, calliope, I've read "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." I've also read "A Tale of Two Cities," though I seem to recall the name of that character (if it's the right character) as "Madame LaFarge." Maybe Matthews (or Media Matters) was referring to someone entirely different, I don't know. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong...when I'm WRONG!

Don't be disingenuous, sgzax. What we're talking about here is exercising our free speech to say that, in our opinion, the man should be fired, because we don't like what he says. We all have the right to do that: and I have the right to point out how stupid and counter-productive that is.

And Gopher, you're right. Only an anti-feminist would say such things in an attempt to silence feminist discourse. And there are millions of anti-feminists waiting in the wings to do just that, should anyone on television dare bring it up. Support a woman's right to choose? Genocide-monger! Like equalized hiring practices for men and women in government? Man-basher! Off the air!

You're also right that if MSNBC does give him the boot, it will be because he's old and outdated, not because there has been some awakening of America's moral sensibility. If they then replace him with some Young Turk who's MORE openly misogynistic and racist, but can REALLY pull in the viewers, well, then all your letter writing won't be worth a damn, will it?

And SarahMC, I'm well aware of what the First Amendment does and does not do. "Feminists are consumers too." Do they want to be? I don't! I don't want to express my politics as a consumer, I want to do so as a citizen! Which is why I DON'T WASTE MY TIME WATCHING MSNBC! If it offends you, TURN IT OFF! That is the real limit of your power in that entire sphere of discourse. To try and go beyond it affects nothing. They don't need your letter to determine that you are no longer watching the show; the letter's content serves only to foster the idea that someone can and should be fired for what they say!

So that's that. I've wasted quite enough time defending a mediocre personality on a third-rate cable channel that I don't even watch. I'll just have to let Chris Matthews stand for the target of the next witch hunt, right or left. Everyone else, enjoy your campaign of righteous indignation. This will be my last post. I was wrong about one thing: bad speech actually drives out good.

Thanks everyone for all the helpful contact information for MSNBC, Matthews, and GE. I will definitely make my voice heard! I think this type of action is excellent.

SarahMC put it best, I think:
"And for the love of god, please educate yourself about the first amendment. It protects people from government interference with their speech - with a number of exceptions. It does not guarantee anyone a right to say whatever they want wherever they want. MSNBC can fire Matthews if they want (though they won't). That's not an interference with his first amendment rights because MSNBC is not the government.

Nobody has a right to a particular job or forum for speech."

It annoys me to no end when people whine about how they have a "first amendment right" to say whatever they want to say. I usually remind them that they really *don't*. Freedom of speech doesn't even protect all speech- most people don't seem to know that. The purpose of freedom of speech is not to let jerks like Matthews say whatever they want wherever they want... as pointed out, MSNBC is not the government [thankfully...] and can therefore fire or hire whomever they please.
I am a consumer. I also happen to be a feminist. I have every right in the world as a consumer to voice my opinion to a company or industry that I don't like the way they are conducting business, and explain to them why. It's sort of how supply and demand works: they supply something I don't like, I don't consume it; if I also let them know what I would like instead, perhaps they will offer it.

Kapek said: "This effort to get Matthews fired is aimed at his industry; but the point of objection is his speech."
His speech is a PART of that industry. As someone who has a show on MSNBC, his name, and his speech, are attached to their industry. I fail to see what you're finding issue with.

Erin said: "Anyways, the median age of a cable news watcher is like 108. They srsly advertise canned oxygen on those shows. I think Media Matters emailers will have a tough time proving they ever buy those products to make a threat to MSNBC."
Since GE owns MSNBC, I think it will be PLENTY easy to find GE products not to buy if we so choose- therefore, impacting [or, if you prefer, "threatening"] MSNBC.

I also would like to point out that WE'RE not censoring anyone. We're voicing our opinion [still speech] that MSNBC should deny Chris Matthews the right to exercise his speech on *their* network. He doesn't have a right to their airspace. In theory, Matthews could still stand on the street and yell his opinions at passers-by. However, I think you will find that ANOTHER limit on speech is *where* you're allowed to exercise it. Matthews might just have to go out and get a permit before he starts spewing sexist bullshit on the sidewalk. ;)

Hardball doesn't just air on MSNBC. Here in DC it airs Sunday morning on regular NBC. Chris Matthews is infecting a larger audience with his drivel. Is that not true in the rest of the country? I know DC probably has a higher population of people interested in political horse race forecasting, does it really not air on network elsewhere?

hey Emily,

Just for the sake of clarity, I think Chris Matthews' Sunday morning talk show is just called "the Chris Matthews show" it's got a slightly different format (and runtime) than Hardball.

LesbianLlama,

I agree this isn't an issue of free speech. Chris Matthews and Don Imus work for corporations who are there to make money not promote dialogue.

I have no problem with Don Imus starting a blogspot.com account and calling every woman in the world a "ho". I object to him getting paid a massive salary (that I pay for by watching advertising and paying exorbitant cable prices) to do it.

SarahMC said it best:

"I think it's our duty in this capitalist society to tell companies/organizations what we think of their decisions.

Feminists are consumers too.

And for the love of god, please educate yourself about the first amendment. It protects people from government interference with their speech - with a number of exceptions. It does not guarantee anyone a right to say whatever they want wherever they want. MSNBC can fire Matthews if they want (though they won't). That's not an interference with his first amendment rights because MSNBC is not the government.

Nobody has a right to a particular job or forum for speech."

And I thought that Roxanne Walker's firing from Greenville radio station WMYI-FM (My 102.5) was free speech related. I guess it cuts both ways. I would love to see the headline "Chris Matthews fired by General Electric" in The State newspaper.

Anyways here is my letter to both MSNBC and Matthews:

Dear Mr. Chris Matthews,

I am disgusted by your misogynistic actions towards Sen. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. And I am a male supporter of Sen. Clinton and I am definitely not a "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Maybe you are a " castratos in the eunuch chorus", because you can't stand to see powerful women. From the cheek pinching to the various remarks you have made about Sen. Clinton, your actions indicate that you have a problem with women. And there are several female governors, including Jennifer Granholm of the Wolverine State (Michigan). I am writing to say enough is enough.

Erin,

I'm sorry if my post was unclear! The last part of my post was in response to the topic in general, not to what you said. I agree with you. I just wanted to reiterate that there are definitely more outlets than one might originally think to pursue action in this case. GE is a great one, since it's widely known and a huge industry... unlike MSNBC, perhaps, which, as you pointed out, might not be extremely effective. ;) Your post actually quite amused me!

Kapek -

If Matthews regularly referred to Obama or Richardson by racist slurs and stereotypes, would you still think it stupid to protest?

Snobographer,

Just for you, I'll break my pledge: yes, I would. Turn to a channel without racist slurs. Let the racists enjoy the racist channel.

And to everyone else: I KNOW this isn't a First Amendment issue! But what gives you the right, as consumers, to dictate the tastes of other consumers? If people LIKE to listen to some guy putting down Hilary Rodham Clinton with misogynistic slurs, if they LIKE to watch sexual harassment on the air, what gives you the right to say that they can't get it with their cable bill?

This is just about making yourselves loud enough and vocal enough to shout down the other guy; because I'm sad to say it, but I DON'T think the majority of the guys viewers are offended by what he's said, or concerned about their effect on impressionable children ("Please consider the impact on young girls and boys watching MSNBC"; nice. Bring the kids into it, that'll get 'em scared).

Neither do I think the majority of Americans are having conniptions about gay marriage and legalized abortion, but a certain minority has decided to be as loud and vocal and hostile as possible to compensate for their small numbers and baseless arguments. And here I find people I thought were progressive and rational taking a page from that book, not just here, but everywhere on the Internet.

If you don't like Chris Matthews style, you have to educate people you ACTUALLY KNOW as to why he's an ignorant know-nothing right-wing hack, so that they, and anyone they in turn convince, will tune out his noise. Trying to drown him out with noise of your own is appalling. I'm thoroughly disgusted, and, for real this time, I'm leaving.

LesbianLlama,

Totes!

I love to disagree with people on this site, but I have to say, they are dead on in asserting that Matthews needs to be censored/gotten rid of. Discourse of this kind and the push to pnish individuals that spew backwards (not to mention unnecessary)garbage is an important part of the democratic process and has been important in mitigating racism/sexism etc. in the past. Racism is HARMFUL. Sexism is HARMFUL. Matthews is effectively pushing the stereotypes that have plagued women and hindered our progress in the past. Not to mention the fact that he is masquerading as a news anchor. News has to be objective in order for it to be effective. The reason, Kapek, other viewers aren't offended by it is because they don't know better. I dont know a better way to educate them then to fire this hack and show them that what he's doing is wrong. I can tell my friends why his type of attitude is wrong but it won't do nearly as much on a national scale as getting him punished for it will. DO you not see how dangerous it is to let people advocate their negative beliefs? This is PROGRESS at its best.

I canceled my Newsweek subscription a while back because I was sick of the misogynist shit that MSNBC is constantly peddling (they own Newsweek). I'd encourage anyone who has a subscription or buys it in the airport or grocery store or something to reconsider buying that rag -- in addition to their parent company being shitty, their journalism has taken a turn for the HORRIBLE in the last few years. I once had a reporter do some stringing for them, and they got all pissed when the community he was writing about turned out to NOT have the racial tensions they thought it had. They told him to go find some racial tension -- you know, basically make up a story. Now I pick up the Economist when I'm on the road and need some reading -- the writing and reporting is far superior, and their topics are more interesting anyhow.

kapek -

so we should stop consuming content we find objectionable but not tell the source (Matthews, MSNBC) WHY we've stopped buying? But how will the free market continue to be the bestest system ever if sellers don't know why they're losing buyers? Any seller honestly trying to make an honest profit (as opposed to catering to sexism because they themselves are sexist) would want to know when they piss off viewers.

And you are wrong about the character's name - it's Madame Defarge.

kapek said:
"But what gives you the right, as consumers, to dictate the tastes of other consumers? If people LIKE to listen to some guy putting down Hilary Rodham Clinton with misogynistic slurs, if they LIKE to watch sexual harassment on the air, what gives you the right to say that they can't get it with their cable bill?"

See, that's just it- consumers dictate what is available to other consumers ALL THE TIME. If there is no market or a small market for a product or service [such as a network promoting sexism] or if consumers voice that they do not support that product or service for XYZ reason, then perhaps the people running the service will rethink their approach. That's basically how capitalism works. I think you said before that we just shouldn't watch it; well, that's not very helpful. We need to not watch it AND let them know WHY. Otherwise, our lack of support is less meaningful.

To address the latter part of your statement, I'd like to point out that the promotion of sexism, disrespect, and hatred towards women that people like Matthews perpetuate makes MY LIFE AS A WOMAN more difficult. It creates a society that is hostile to me. Not to mention promoting the very views and treatment of women that feminists seek to change. While we can certainly educate people as to why sexism is bad and Matthews is a moron, it is also good to take the approach of SHOWING people that it isn't okay to say the things he says.
Furthermore, I am irritated to no end by the law's lack of protection for women in this sense. In a work or education environment, women are protected from speech like Matthews' because it creates a hostile work/educational environment- why is it that I'm not afforded some sort of similar right in the other aspects of my DAY TO DAY life? It makes my whole LIFE a hostile environment. Sexism is something that women encounter every day of their lives, and people like Matthews make stopping sexism virtually impossible. His statements add to a society that doesn't value women. That pisses me off, and I have every right to voice my distaste for him and his statements to the network that allows his despicable message to be broadcast to a large audience.
Dirtybug has it exactly right.

"I KNOW this isn't a First Amendment issue! But what gives you the right, as consumers, to dictate the tastes of other consumers? If people LIKE to listen to some guy putting down Hilary Rodham Clinton with misogynistic slurs, if they LIKE to watch sexual harassment on the air, what gives you the right to say that they can't get it with their cable bill?"

Because I get it with my cable bill too. MSNBC is a basic cable station. And it's supposed to be a NEWS channel, not a SEXISM channel. I watch the news, ostensibly, to be informed about current events, not to get an earful of bigotry.

If you don't like Chris Matthews style, you have to educate people you ACTUALLY KNOW as to why he's an ignorant know-nothing right-wing hack, so that they, and anyone they in turn convince, will tune out his noise. Trying to drown him out with noise of your own is appalling. I'm thoroughly disgusted, and, for real this time, I'm leaving.

Jesus, it must be hard to leave this place! Nobody is stopping anybody from leaving.

1. Chris Matthews is not a right-wing hack. He is a quasi-liberal (though with dubious qualifications) misogynist hack. Lefties can be good at hating women too.

2. Stop trying to use a misrepresentation of the concept of free speech to silence my voice.

keith olberman and anderson cooper are the only newscasters I can stand to watch on any network.

Often before countdown comes on I tend to catch the last few minutes of hardball. I can't tell you how often I want to punch the asshole in the head.

And I agree that writing to MSNBC, asking them to take Matthews of the air, is not denying anyone free speech. this is just using the free market. Now if the government started denying anybody the right to voice their opinion in their own forum, then I would protest. Even if the group is someone as deplorable in the KKK. Blech

sgzax, Christopher Matthews is a neocon. No liberal, even the misogynist ones, would ever invite Ann Coulter to his show to spew her bile.

Chris Matthiews isn't the only one at MSNBC. The financial show is horrible in the way it treats women. On New Years Eve they ran a show on Times Square. Behind the reporters were a groups of 20-something women. The reporters struck up a conversation with them that was quite condescending. The camera cut back to the studio and a female reporter said "I don't think those girls were so interested in finance, I think it's financiers that they are looking for." Unfortunately I can't recall the reporter's name.
I'm glad someone finally mentioned the Camp Lejeune case. I was sickened when reading about it.

I killed my television.

But how will the free market continue to be the bestest system ever if sellers don't know why they're losing buyers?

Yes, exactly. If you want a free market system, it will work best when both the buyers and sellers have all the information. We can't stop watching without telling MSNBC why, or else we're taking away their chance to make informed decisions. Similarly, when they get our letters, and choose to do nothing, we have more information - that they're not particularly concerned about keeping the business of female consumers. Then, we can make informed decisions about where to bring our business in the future.

kapek is really smitten with that Caps Lock....

ouyangdan -- way up yonder in the comments has one of the best points here. It's about what we have to demand. The work is not done. Let's write the freaking board members.

And I'd ask, how many women are in the upper executive realms of GE? How about NBC, ABC, CBS? You bet it matters. How about their boards?

One thing that we can achieve in this election is to charge the media's doors about the sexism in their talking heads. I think Jon Stewart does a service by calling one of them crazy. The executives in these media outlets apparently think it's a social norm to be a sexist clod. While to be racist is what gets you suspended.

What is up with all these women-hating clods from the TV to the New York Times to the Washington Post and even on liberal blogs? Do they put that in their job ads on Monster or something?

Oh fucking Christ, Kapek.

It's very simple. Chris Matthews, Don Imus, and all the other lovelies have every right to spew whatever they want to on their programs. Just the same, I, as a viewer/listener, and therefore, customer, have every right to tell their "boss" that I don't like the "service" a particular employee is providing. The "boss" in turn has every right to either ignore me if they think my opinions are in the minority and won't affect their bottom line, or fire the bastard if they decide that the employee is costing the company money or creating bad PR. The other customer in this equation, the advertisers, have every right to pull their financial support (effectively rendering a show useless since they only exist to make money) if they decide it wouldn't be good for their company to sponsor, say, a sexist cockgobbler.

This isn't censorship - it's capitalism, and for once, I like it. If the media are going to insist on being SUCH capitalist whores with no real interest in actual art, culture, community, education, news (or anything that ISN'T money, for that matter) we might as well use it against them.

if he has the right to say asinine things, i have the right to complain and demand he stop.

What i find most upsetting, is that it's just a really lame way to discuss politics when there are much more important ideas at stake rather than say, the tone of her voice.

Also, WFT does a "convincing mom" look like.. umm, Hillary has a kid, her name is Chelsea, where's the ambiguity?

this is the letter i sent:

To Whom It May Concern,

I have to say I am severely disappointed in the quality of democratic discourse that has become the new standard for your show as of late. Chris Matthews' disproportionately disrespectful references and public mistreatment of Hillary Clinton is a disgrace to journalism, your program, network and public discourse in the nation in general. I must ask you to cease with the sexist and misogynist rhetoric.

Elections are a serious matter and require the electorate to make important decisions regarding the future and direction of our nation. It is irresponsible of you to distract from the important issues that need to be carefully considered with frivolous commentary that is entirely irrelevant to the political process. Acts of loutish immaturity such as name-calling and cheek pinching truly have no place in an intelligent conversation aimed at informing the public.

As a woman, an intellectual, a voter and a viewer, I am appalled at the recent comments made by Chris Matthews and more so appalled at your program's and network's insistence that his behavior is condonable. I am quite certain that he is not acting alone. The producers and executives of this program are equally culpable of his infractions and are equally as capable of elevating the program to a higher standard of journalism.

At this point I would not like to see anything so dramatic as the show's cancellation or the termination of Mr. Matthews as host or moderator. Rather, I would merely like to see the standard of discourse elevated in your program. As it stands, you should all be ashamed at the lack of class you project and the lack of intelligence you obviously assume of your viewing audience. There is no need for sexist, childish and boorish behavior in journalism and frankly, there should not be room for it.